icd11_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by specifying what output to expect: definition, coding notes, exclusions, title, synonyms. This complements the 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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of uses and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema (not shown but confirmed), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter constraints. It provides enough context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds further meaning by explaining the 'either/or' relationship between code and URI, providing concrete examples, and mentioning the language parameter's default.

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 clearly uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'detailed information about a specific ICD-11 entity by code or URI.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like icd11_search or icd11_hierarchy by focusing on direct lookup of a single entity.

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?

It lists concrete use cases (get definition, retrieve notes and exclusions, get title and synonyms) and provides parameter guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives like icd11_search or icd11_hierarchy.

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