crossmap_icd_meddra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It only says 'provides conceptual mapping guidance', which is vague. It fails to clarify whether results are exact, probabilistic, or multiple options, nor does it mention output format or limitations.

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 with no redundant words. The purpose is stated first, followed by context. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and context but lacks details about output behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, it should hint at the nature of results (e.g., list of mappings, confidence scores) to ensure completeness.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (term with examples, direction with enumerated values). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline performance.

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?

Description clearly states 'Cross-map between ICD-10 and MedDRA terminology', specifying the verb and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are lookups of single terminologies) by emphasizing the mapping between two systems.

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 mentions critical use cases: 'regulatory submissions, REMS, and pharmacovigilance'. However, it doesn't explicitly advise when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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