nomis_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by indicating two modes—listing all concepts or returning one definition—but does not disclose any further behavior such as format effects, default behavior, or response characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and readable, though its brevity sacrifices semantic detail that could have been included without bloating the text.

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 there are three optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin for an agent to know how to request a specific concept or select an output format. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the invocation semantics are left unspecified.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It does not mention the 'concept' parameter, the 'format' enum, or how to trigger a list versus a definition, so the agent must rely entirely on bare schema fields with no explanatory help.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List NOMIS concepts or return a concept definition.' It is clear enough to identify the tool's domain, but the dual-mode 'or' leaves ambiguity about when each behavior applies, and it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like nomis_datasets, nomis_codelists, or nomis_query.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies two possible actions but gives no conditions, and it never mentions sibling tools or scenarios where another NOMIS tool would be more appropriate.

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