How a state's external review process works: filing deadline, regulator contact, and key facts. Verified detail currently covers 10 states (CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI); other states return the covered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code, e.g. 'ca', 'ny', 'fl' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: verified detail covers 10 states; other states return the list. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key info, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description fully explains what it returns, coverage limitations, and fallback behavior. No missing context given the annotations.
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 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond implying the parameter is used for lookup, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 resource (state external review process) and action (get details: filing deadline, regulator contact, key facts). It specifies coverage and fallback behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle appeals, conditions, drugs, etc.
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 implicitly tells when to use (for state external review details) and mentions fallback for uncovered states, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_appeal_rights vs. get_state_external_review), but get_condition_outcomes, get_treatment_outcomes, and get_drug_playbook overlap in the domain of external-review outcomes. An agent may confuse which to use for a given query, especially for drugs that appear in both drug_playbook and treatment_outcomes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for retrieval, list_* for enumeration, rank_* for rankings, and search_* for discovery. No mixed styles or inconsistent verb usage.
Nine tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the coverage rights domain, and the count feels neither excessive nor thin.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: determining appeal rights, researching outcomes by condition/treatment, accessing insurer metrics, and understanding state processes. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool for state comparison or bulk retrieval of all states' external review rules, but these are not critical to the main purpose.