check_icd_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It conveys the basic predicate behavior ('check whether') and implies a read-only operation, but adds no detail on edge cases, formatting, or potential errors. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with no filler. The key domain qualifier ('ISO 6523 ICD code') is placed prominently, making the tool's scope immediately apparent.

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?

For a one-parameter validator with an output schema, the description covers the core intent and parameter meaning. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema is expected to handle that. Minor gaps such as explicit mention of the related list_icd_codes tool are not critical.

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 schema defines 'code' only as a string. The description adds the essential semantic that the parameter is an ISO 6523 ICD code and that the tool tests its recognition, compensating well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action ('Check whether'), the target resource ('*code*'), and the specific criteria ('recognized ISO 6523 ICD code'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_vatex_code and list_icd_codes.

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 intended usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_icd_codes or other check_* tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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