find_curated_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses provenance semantics (curated vs generated), safety of using matches as-is, the limited bundled dataset, and the exact empty-set behavior with an 'unmappable' entry when no match exists or the library has not been fetched.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage priority, fallback behavior, dataset limitation, and a clean param/returns/rtype breakdown. The most important routing guidance is front-loaded in the first two paragraphs.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it searches, when to use it, what it returns, how it signals failure, and a critical caveat about the bundled library. No important gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines the single parameter as 'Free-text population description' and supplies concrete examples like 'type 2 diabetes' and 'diabetic ketoacidosis,' making the expected input clear. It stops short of additional constraints or formatting details, but for one simple parameter this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the OHDSI Phenotype Library for a validated cohort definition.' It further differentiates itself from siblings by positioning this tool as the curated-definition search and naming search_concepts/expand_hierarchy as the fallback alternatives.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Use this FIRST for any population description that plausibly matches a peer-reviewed phenotype' and 'Only fall back to search_concepts/expand_hierarchy if nothing matches.' It also warns that a miss does not mean no curated definition exists, preventing a common misinference.

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