Search ICD-11

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the description adds value by detailing return contents (codes, titles, relevance scores) and the language behavior (official translations, never machine-translated). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a brief opening statement, bulleted use cases, a specific language note, and a return summary. Every sentence contributes, and it is concise without 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?

With an output schema present, the description covers purpose, use cases, language behavior, and return types. It is complete for a search tool, though it could briefly mention when to use this instead of a lookup tool, but this is a minor gap given sibling names are self-explanatory.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example for 'language' (Portuguese) and clarifies 'query' accepts disease names, but these largely echo the schema. No new parameter-level semantics are introduced.

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 the tool searches for medical conditions in ICD-11, with specific use cases like finding codes, searching by name/keyword, and multilingual lookup. The verb 'Search' and resource 'ICD-11' are explicit, and the tool is differentiated from siblings like icd11_lookup by its focus on search rather than lookup.

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 'Use this tool to' section provides clear scenarios (finding codes, searching by disease, multilingual lookup) and the language example gives concrete guidance. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like icd11_lookup, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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