Map LOINC to SNOMED CT (Guidance)

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, the description goes beyond by stating 'It does not perform the mapping' and explains licensing constraints (UMLS license, LOINC Expression Association download). This adds critical behavioral context about what the tool actually returns (guidance, not a mapping) and the limitations of data availability.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it covers the tool's purpose, what it does not do, licensing context, and alternative tools. The paragraph structure is clear and front-loaded with the essential purpose. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool's caveats.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and complex licensing/alternative considerations. The description covers all critical aspects: what it does, what it does not do, licensing requirements, programmatic alternatives, interactive alternatives, and input format example. There are no significant gaps in context.

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 already provides a full description ('LOINC code (e.g., 2339-0 for Glucose)') and pattern. The tool description adds examples ('2339-0' and '718-7') but these are redundant with the schema's example. With 100% schema coverage, no additional parameter semantics are necessary; the description provides a small reinforcement but no new information beyond the schema.

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 'looks up a LOINC code in NLM Clinical Tables and returns guidance on where to obtain a LOINC → SNOMED CT mapping. It does not perform the mapping.' This is a specific verb+resource with an explicit limitation, distinguishing it from actual mapping tools.

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 alternatives: 'For programmatic LOINC → SNOMED mapping, use UMLS or the LOINC Expression Association files. For interactive lookup, use the SNOMED CT browser available to your organization or the Regenstrief RELMA desktop tool.' It also explains when the tool is appropriate (guidance lookup) vs alternatives, making usage conditions clear.

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