terminology_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context that it is a 'metadata + guidance layer' and explains the nature of the output (guidance vs real diff for ICD-10/11). This enriches transparency without contradicting 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 well-structured: a clear first sentence, then a paragraph explaining guidance vs real diff, a specific example, and a list of inputs. It is not overly concise but each part serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 (not shown), the description focuses on behavior and constraints. It covers purpose, limitations, specific case, and parameter semantics. For a tool with only 3 required parameters, it is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when from_version and to_version are omitted, and provides a specific use case with icd10 and no to_version. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 reports diff data availability between two terminology versions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it is a metadata layer, not a diff engine, and provides specific behavior for ICD-10 vs ICD-11.

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 explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: for most terminologies it's guidance only, and for frequently changing ones the publisher's changelog is authoritative. It gives a concrete example with ICD-10 and specific parameter usage, though it does not explicitly list all alternative tools.

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