icd11_postcoordination

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about postcoordination capabilities but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose, a header 'Use this tool to:' with three quick points, and a closing explanatory sentence. No redundant words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values don't need elaboration), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and a brief explanation of postcoordination. It does not mention error handling for invalid codes, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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% description coverage (the only parameter 'code' is described as 'ICD-11 code to get postcoordination info for'). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states 'Get postcoordination information for an ICD-11 code' and lists specific use cases (axes, required vs optional, extension possibilities). It distinguishes from sibling tools like icd11_lookup and icd11_search which handle basic code lookup and searching, not postcoordination.

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 includes 'Use this tool to:' with three explicit bullet points that guide when to use it (to find axes, check required vs optional postcoordination, understand extensions). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names provide enough context.

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