onto_crosswalk

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions a data file requirement, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The lookup nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a key prerequisite. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema. The description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of mappings, target codes). For a lookup tool, this is a critical missing detail. Also error handling is absent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context by listing supported systems, but the schema already provides examples for code and source_system. The added value is marginal.

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 verb ('look up'), resource ('clinical crosswalk mappings'), and scope ('for a code and system' with specific examples like ICD10, SNOMED, MeSH). It distinguishes this tool from many siblings by focusing on crosswalk mappings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., onto_map, onto_align). Only a prerequisite is mentioned (data/crosswalks.parquet), but no when-not or exclusion criteria.

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