icd11_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is listing the specific information returned (definition, notes, exclusions, title, synonyms). This adds good context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Description is very concise, uses a clear two-paragraph structure, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 has 3 parameters (all optional, 100% schema coverage), output schema, and annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to invoke it. It is complete for a simple lookup tool without needing to detail output format.

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% and descriptions in schema are clear. The description adds examples ('e.g., "BA00"') and clarifies that either code or URI should be provided, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get', identifies resource 'detailed information about a specific ICD-11 entity', and clearly states the method 'by code or URI'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like icd11_search (which searches) and icd11_hierarchy (which browses structure).

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?

Description provides explicit use cases such as 'Get the full definition of a disease', 'Retrieve coding notes and exclusions', and 'Get the official title and synonyms'. It also explains input options (code or URI). However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like icd11_search, which would make it even clearer.

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