Search classification codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the useful scoping behavior that omitting codelist_id broadens results across option lists, but says nothing about result ranking, truncation, or interaction with classification_ids.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key scoping caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with four parameters at 0% schema coverage the definition is incomplete: limit and classification_ids are undocumented anywhere, and the interplay between codelist_id and classification_ids is ambiguous. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently tune it.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies codelist_id's narrowing effect. The required 'query' string, 'limit' (1-100, default 20), and especially 'classification_ids' — including whether it can combine with codelist_id — are left completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and target (full-text search over labels and notes), which is clear enough to distinguish it from map_codes or validate_codes. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast its scope against the other search/list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_classifications, browse_hierarchy, or get_code_definition. The only conditional statement ('results restrict to one option list only when codelist_id is explicitly supplied') describes a parameter effect, not a selection criterion for the agent.

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