search_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that search is full-text, system defaults to all, and limit defaults to 20 with max 50. However, it does not mention case sensitivity, matching behavior, ordering, or whether the search is partial/fuzzy. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. No redundancy, efficiently front-loaded.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers required input semantics. Missing some context like sorting, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description adds thorough semantic meaning: explains 'query' with example, lists allowed 'system' values with note that empty means all, and clarifies 'limit' default and max. This compensates fully for the bare 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 function: 'Search codes by clinical description using full-text search.' It specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'codes', and the method 'full-text search'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'browse_category' (browse by category) and 'lookup_code' (lookup specific code).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this over 'browse_category', 'get_stats', 'lookup_code', or 'translate_code'. No 'when-to-use' or 'use-this-over' statements are present.

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