icd11_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns 'matching entities with codes, titles, and relevance scores,' providing useful context about the response beyond the schema. 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 concise (two sentences plus a bullet list), front-loaded with the purpose, and structured for easy reading. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low tool complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is complete. It states the purpose, use cases, and returned data. The output schema handles return value details, and annotations cover safety/behavior.

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%—all three parameters (query, language, max_results) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add per-parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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, diseases, and health problems in ICD-11. It lists specific use cases (find codes, search by name/keyword, lookup in multiple languages) and mentions returning codes, titles, and relevance scores. This distinguishes it from siblings like icd11_lookup (exact code lookup) and icd11_chapters.

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 (find ICD-11 codes, search by name or keyword, lookup by language) implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like icd11_lookup for exact code lookups. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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