ICD-10 to MONDO Resolver

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the mapping purpose and provides an example, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or rate limits. With strong annotations, the description is adequate.

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 4 sentences, starting with the core purpose, followed by context and an example. It is appropriately sized with no superfluous text, though the example could be more compactly integrated.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, integration context, and usage example. It lacks information about error handling or code format validation, but for a simple mapping tool with annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already includes a description for 'icd10_code' with format and example values. The description reinforces this with an example call but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is effectively high due to the inline description.

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 action ('Resolve'), the source resource ('ICD-10 clinical code'), and the target resource ('MONDO disease ontology terms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other disease/target/phenotype operations like 'analyze_structural_confidence' or 'search_diseases'.

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 explains the context of use: 'integration between clinical / EHR data (which uses ICD-10) and the research-grade MONDO ontology'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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