search_icd10

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns official codes, uses word-matching logic ('contains all your search words'), and orders results by shortest most general code. This is adequate for a read-only 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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and usage, then explains behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains input behavior, matching logic, and ordering. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention that results are codes with matched descriptions.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing specific examples for 'query' (e.g., 'type 2 diabetes') and noting that 'limit' defaults to 20, which the schema does not specify.

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: to find ICD-10-CM codes for a condition via reverse lookup, distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_icd10 and validate_icd10. The verb 'find' and resource 'ICD-10-CM code' are explicit.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS to find the ICD-10-CM code for a condition (reverse lookup) instead of guessing the code', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons, but the context includes sibling names for inference.

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