code_clinical_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the scoped data set, data source (CMS FY2026), supplemented inclusion terms, and the unvalidated NLM API fallback under externalSuggestions. It does not detail output statuses, confidence thresholds, or constraint-validation mechanics, though it is substantially transparent.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then scope, data source, and fallback. All sentences carry information and there is no filler. It is somewhat long, but each section earns its place.

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?

Despite high complexity (no annotations, no output schema, fallback API), the description covers purpose, scope, data source, and fallback behavior. However, it omits explanation of the output statuses hinted at by max_results, the confidence threshold, and what 'constraint validation' means, leaving notable gaps for a complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it refers to 'clinical note' and ranked results but does not elaborate on max_results or note_text format beyond what the schema already contains.

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 'Accepts a clinical note and returns ranked ICD-10-CM diagnosis code candidates with constraint validation' and clarifies it is not a diagnostic tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling lookup_icd10_code, so it misses the differentiation that would merit a 5.

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 gives clear context by defining the tool as a coding assistance tool, listing explicit scoped categories, and describing the NLM fallback behavior. It also warns 'not a diagnostic tool,' which provides a when-not. It does not name alternatives or state when to use lookup_icd10_code instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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