lookup_ctcae

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, error handling (e.g., term not found), or whether the output includes grade descriptions. This is a significant gap for a lookup tool.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Look up') and includes both the full name and acronym (CTCAE) for clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and domain. However, it omits any mention of output format (e.g., grade level descriptions) or behavior on invalid input, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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% for the single parameter 'adverse_event', with examples given. The tool description adds domain-specific context but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it looks up CTCAE grading criteria for adverse events, specifying the resource (CTCAE) and action (look up grading). The phrase 'Essential for oncology clinical trial safety reporting' provides domain context. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other terminologies (ICD, MedDRA, RxNorm) by focusing on CTCAE.

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 implies usage for oncology clinical trial safety reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_meddra or search_medical_concept. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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