map_loinc_to_snomed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: it does not perform the mapping, explains the lack of free direct API access, and describes the return value as guidance, which aligns with the annotations and enhances transparency.

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 minimal, but each sentence serves a purpose: stating functionality, clarifying limitations, explaining mapping availability, listing alternatives, and providing an example. It is well-structured with key information front-loaded, though slightly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (guidance rather than direct mapping), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it doesn't, conditions, alternatives, and example input. The existence of an output schema (as per context signals) reduces the need to describe return values, so the description is complete.

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 schema already describes the loinc_code parameter with pattern and example. The description reinforces with an example ('2339-0' for Glucose), adding minor practical value. A score of 4 reflects that the description enhances beyond the schema but is not strictly necessary.

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's purpose: it looks up a LOINC code and returns guidance on where to obtain a LOINC → SNOMED CT mapping, explicitly noting it does not perform the mapping itself. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform direct lookups or searches.

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 when-to-use (when guidance on mapping is needed) and when-not-to-use (it does not perform mapping), and lists alternatives: UMLS, LOINC Expression Association, SNOMED CT browser, or RELMA tool. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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