Terminology Version Diff

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, the description adds behavioral context: the server doesn't ship historical snapshots, bundled_versions lists available versions, and the tool is guidance-only for most terminologies but surfaces a real WHO transition summary for ICD-10/11. No contradictions.

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 with purpose, guidance, special case, inputs, and caveats. It's slightly redundant (the 'metadata + guidance layer' sentence repeats the earlier 'guidance only' idea) but overall each section earns its place for a nuanced tool.

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 description covers purpose, usage, limitations, parameter defaults, and special cases, while the output schema handles return-value details. No significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds parameter semantics beyond the schema: default behavior when from_version/to_version omitted, and the special combination of terminology='icd10' with no to_version. This enriches the agent's understanding of how parameters interact.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report what diff data is available between two versions of a terminology.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by framing itself as a metadata/guidance layer rather than a diff engine, and explicitly contrasts with mapping tools like map_icd10_to_icd11.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for most terminologies it gives guidance-only and directs to the publisher's official changelog as authoritative; it gives a specific usage instruction for ICD-10 vs ICD-11 ('Use terminology: "icd10" with no to_version'), and states its intentional limitation as not a diff engine, thereby excluding it from actual diff tasks.

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