search_medical_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight for behavioral cues. It states the tool returns concept definitions and cross-system identifiers. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like multiple matches, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some ambiguity for a search 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 without fluff. It front-loads the core action and lists key systems, then succinctly states return type. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (multi-system search) and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains that it returns definitions and identifiers. It does not mention result ordering or size limits, but for a search tool this is reasonably complete.

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% with both parameters described (term and vocabulary with enum). The description adds context about supported systems (SNOMED CT, MeSH, LOINC, NCI Thesaurus) and the UMLS source, but does not cover all enum values (e.g., ICD10CM is missing). This adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for a medical concept across terminology systems' using specific sources (SNOMED CT, MeSH, LOINC, NCI Thesaurus) via NIH UMLS Metathesaurus. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling lookup tools that target single 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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. It implies cross-system search but lacks a clear directive like 'use for multi-terminology searches; use lookup_* for single system lookups.' Usage context is only inferred.

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