search_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the matching algorithm (BM25 + embeddings fused by reciprocal rank), that results are tagged as 'generated' provenance, and that empty results include an 'unmappable' explanation. This is solid behavioral disclosure, though it omits any explicit read-only or safety statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds relevant behavioral details, usage guidance, and structured parameter/return docs. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 minimal schema, no annotations, and output-schema presence, the description covers the essential invocation and interpretation details: search semantics, caveats about generated provenance, result behavior on no match, and parameter meanings. The sibling list further helps an agent distinguish this search tool from exact-lookup and hierarchy tools.

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 is minimal, only marking query as required with no property definitions. The description fully compensates by explaining query as a free-text search string with an example and k as the maximum number of results to return, making both parameters unambiguous.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching ICD-10-CM concept names with a free-text clinical term or phrase. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like lookup_concept, but the emphasis on free-text and paraphrase matching makes the tool's role clear.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the user has loosely-worded clinical descriptions and when exact terminology is unknown, saying 'always prefer this over guessing at exact terminology yourself.' It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is strong.

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