Search a concept's code list

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-redundant behavioral context: only CodeList concepts return entries and `language` is required by the upstream API, which helps an agent anticipate failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short paragraphs plus a compact Args list. The core purpose and key constraint are front-loaded, and each sentence adds 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?

For a paged read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, applicable concept type, pagination parameters, and the upstream language requirement. It doesn't fully specify behavior for invalid or non-codelist concept IDs (empty vs error), but the CodeList-only statement largely covers the main edge case.

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 0% schema-level parameter descriptions, the Args section carries the full burden and succeeds: each parameter gets a purpose, and `concept_id` is tied back to `list_concepts`, `language` noted as required upstream, and paging semantics are stated. This is complete and meaningful compensation for the schema gap.

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 'List the individual codes of a code-list concept,' a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_concepts and get_concept. The title reinforces the scope without ambiguity.

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?

It says 'Use this to resolve official code values' and adds the precondition that only concepts with `concept_type == "CodeList"` return entries, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'do not use for X,' so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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