lookup_icd10_code

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

The description discloses the data source (CMS FY2026) and scope (cardiac/diabetes/respiratory/musculoskeletal, curated), which are beyond the schema and useful for setting expectations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does so well, though it does not mention error behavior or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by essential data scope information. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is returned (full detail including inclusion terms and Excludes1/2 relationships) and the data scope. It does not specify return format or error handling, but for a lookup tool with this simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema provides a clear description of the parameter 'code' with examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description, so the baseline of 3 applies here.

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 returns full detail for a single ICD-10-CM code, specifying the resource (ICD-10-CM) and the verb (Returns). It distinguishes from the sibling tool (code_clinical_note) by focusing on code lookup rather than note interaction.

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 implies usage for looking up a single code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus code_clinical_note. It lacks explicit alternative names or exclusion criteria, so it only provides implied context.

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