translate_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using GEMs crosswalk but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling on invalid codes, rate limits, or required authentication. It also does not describe what the output contains beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains the translation method, parameter formats, and auto-detection behavior. There are no gaps in context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the format of 'code' with examples ('250.00' for ICD-9, 'E119' for ICD-10-CM), specifies the allowed values for 'source_system' ('icd9cm' or 'icd10cm'), and clarifies that an empty value triggers auto-detection. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 action ('Translate between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM') and the method ('using GEMs crosswalk'). The verb 'Translate' and specific resource 'ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM' distinguish it from sibling tools that browse, get stats, lookup, or search codes.

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 indicates when to use by specifying the purpose (code translation) and notes auto-detection for the source system. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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