Search treatments (categories + specific drugs/procedures) and conditions by name. Returns slugs for get_treatment_outcomes / get_condition_outcomes plus headline overturn rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results per type (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search text, e.g. 'wegovy', 'back pain', 'imaging' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not add much beyond confirming return values (slugs and overturn rates). No contradictions, but minimal extra behavioral disclosure.
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 convey the purpose and output efficiently. No wasted words, though the return-value detail could be slightly more structured.
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?
The tool is simple (search) with good annotations. The description covers the output purpose (slugs for other tools) and overturn rates, which is adequate. Lacks details on result format or pagination, but these are reasonable omissions.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates that search is by name.
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 that the tool searches treatments and conditions by name, and specifies that it returns slugs for get_treatment_outcomes and get_condition_outcomes along with headline overturn rates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that consume those slugs.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., get_treatment_outcomes, get_condition_outcomes). The description implies a search role but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.
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.