terminology_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds specific details about CID-10 being frozen, ICD-10→ICD-11 version reading live, and the default returning 8 entries. It goes beyond 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?

Description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. Second part is well-structured with bullet points. Every sentence carries meaningful information without fluff.

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 rich annotations and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and special behaviors. No gaps identified for this simple list tool.

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% with a clear enum and description. The description adds a bit of context about the default behavior and the exact set of terminologies, but this information is mostly redundant with the schema, so minimal added value.

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 it lists version details for all terminologies. The verb 'List' and resource 'terminology versions' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like specific lookup or search tools by focusing purely on metadata.

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 includes a dedicated section on when it is useful (pipeline maintainers needing version confirmation). It explains the optional filter parameter. It does not explicitly name siblings to avoid but gives strong contextual cues.

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