List Icd Codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' and the fixed source imply a read-only enumeration with no side effects, which is sufficient for a parameterless list operation. It does not detail ordering or filtering, but the presence of an output schema covers return structure.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: verb, object, and source are all present and front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema provided), the description is nearly complete. It names the code list and source. The only missing context is usage guidance relative to sibling check/list tools, which is already penalized in the usage dimension.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The '0 params = baseline 4' rule applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 action ('List') and a precise resource ('ISO 6523 ICD codes') with a source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_eas_codes and check_icd_code by naming the exact code category.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer from naming conventions that check_icd_code is for verifying a single code and list_icd_codes is for enumerating all ICD codes. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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