icd11_chapters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds disclosure that there are 28 chapters, reinforcing non-destructive, idempotent behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Three clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states core purpose, second lists use cases, third provides factual count.

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 presence of output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough for AI agents. The brief mention of 28 chapters provides helpful context. Minor gap: could mention that chapters are non-nested, but not essential.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the single parameter 'language' is fully described with enum and default. Description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all ICD-11 chapters') and clearly indicates top-level categories. It distinguishes from siblings like icd11_hierarchy which likely navigates sub-hierarchies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: for overview, finding chapters by body system, and navigating to categories. Lacks explicit exclusion of when not to use, but context of siblings provides differentiation.

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