list_icd_codes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only enumeration operation and names the exact source standard, making side effects or mutation implausible. It does not go as far as noting cache/refresh behavior, but nothing about this simple parameterless list appears hidden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the verb, the exact code system, and the source list.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, this description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It identifies the resource and source, and no additional preconditions or choices are needed.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description wastes no space attempting to explain nonexistent inputs.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('ISO 6523 ICD codes'), and the authoritative source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This clearly differentiates it from nearby siblings like check_icd_code and the other list_* code enumeration tools.

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 use for enumerating all ICD codes in the code list, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over check_icd_code or mention any exclusions. The context signal from sibling names provides the pattern, but the description itself gives no direct guidance.

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