icf_parse_qualified_code

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains the parsing behavior and output format with examples, but does not mention error handling for invalid codes or other edge cases.

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?

Description is concise (~10 lines) with examples upfront, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input format, purpose, and return type. The examples clarify different ICF categories and qualifier patterns, making it complete for the use case.

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%, so description must compensate. It provides multiple examples of valid code patterns (with dots, plus) and explains qualifier structure, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 parses and explains qualifier components of an ICF code, with distinct verb 'parse' and resource 'qualified ICF code'. Examples differentiate from siblings like icf_explain_qualifier (single qualifier) and icf_validate_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., icf_explain_qualifier). Usage is implied only through examples; no when-not or alternative indicators are provided.

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