convert_icd_mesh

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses bidirectional conversion, automatic ICD version detection, return format (JSON with result and PubMed query), and the constraint of providing only one parameter. It could mention error handling but covers key behaviors.

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 well-structured with headings, examples, and explicit args. It is slightly lengthy but each section adds value. Good front-loading of purpose and clear formatting.

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 (bidirectional, two parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description covers inputs, behavior, and output format. It lacks error scenarios but is largely complete for a conversion tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds extensive meaning: explains ICD-9/10 format, MeSH term examples, mutual exclusivity, and automatic version detection. It fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Convert between ICD codes and MeSH terms (bidirectional)' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings which are search and analysis tools, not conversion tools.

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 explains when to use 'code' vs 'mesh_term' with examples, and states they are mutually exclusive. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, which is acceptable for a specialized converter.

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