find_equivalent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds details about parameter combination (source subtracted from targets) and search scope, providing useful context beyond annotations without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, uses bullet points for clarity, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, and search scope. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema descriptions cover each parameter, the tool description explains the interaction between source_terminology and target_terminologies (subtraction logic) and clarifies the purpose of limiting vs excluding, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Search for equivalent terms across multiple medical terminologies' and lists specific terminologies. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which target individual terminologies, and explicitly states the cross-terminology mapping purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios in bullet points and explains how to limit or exclude terminologies via parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear and unique among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.