Get ICD-11 Code Details

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent/safe properties, so the description appropriately focuses on disclosing return data structure (descriptions, URIs, hierarchies, crosswalks) rather than safety; however, it omits behavioral details like caching, rate limits, or 'not found' error behaviors.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Get comprehensive details') and efficiently lists return components without redundancy; every clause serves to clarify the scope of 'comprehensive details.'

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates effectively by enumerating the specific data fields returned (hierarchy, crosswalks, etc.); for a single-parameter lookup tool with strong annotations, this provides sufficient context despite omitting error-handling specifics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and the schema providing clear examples ('5A11', 'BA00'), the description meets the baseline expectation by referencing 'ICD-11 code' but adds minimal semantic clarification beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ICD-11 code'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_code' (generic) and 'search_icd11_codes' (search functionality) by emphasizing 'specific' code retrieval and enumerating exact return fields (Foundation URI, synonyms, hierarchy, crosswalks).

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 term 'specific ICD-11 code' implies usage when an exact code is known, contrasting with the sibling 'search_icd11_codes', but the description lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or explicit naming of alternatives for code discovery scenarios.

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