lookup_icd10

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes expected returns but does not explicitly declare read-only or non-destructive behavior. The actions 'search' and 'look up' imply safety, but explicit confirmation would improve clarity.

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 effectively convey purpose, expected output, and usage context with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 input format, output fields, and high-level context (clinical documentation). While it lacks edge-case details (e.g., partial matching, empty results), it is sufficient for a simple lookup tool given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters adequately. The tool description restates the query purpose but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema 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 explicitly states the tool searches and looks up ICD-10-CM codes by diagnosis name or code, and returns code, description, and category. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_meddra which cover other terminologies.

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 notes the tool is 'essential for clinical documentation agents,' implying its primary context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for other code systems), though sibling tool names provide some implicit guidance.

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