icd11_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating that it returns matching entities with codes, titles, and relevance scores, and clarifying the search scope. No contradictions 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 very concise: three short sentences plus a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose and quickly gives actionable use cases. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 (so return values are covered) and three well-described parameters, the description is complete. It covers the main use cases and return structure. However, it could briefly mention how it differs from similar search tools (e.g., icd11_lookup) for full completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional information beyond the schema; it only repeats the purpose. The schema already adequately describes the parameters (query, language, max_results).

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 it searches ICD-11 conditions, diseases, and health problems. It lists specific use cases (find codes, search by keyword, multilingual lookup). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cid10_search or icd11_lookup, which could cause confusion.

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 provides explicit use cases in bullet points ('Use this tool to: ...'), giving clear context on when to use it. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools, which would improve differentiation.

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