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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine scope boundaries beyond the structured data: "No patient data, no code descriptors," which preempts two plausible but wrong expectations about the payload.

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?

Three compact sentences: content scope first, then a usage cue, then exclusions. Nothing is padded, though the inline enum re-listing slightly duplicates the schema rather than earning new information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read-only tool the description covers purpose, content classes, and exclusions adequately; only explicit alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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 100% and the single specialty enum is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description merely restates the enum options inline (dental, aesthetics, physiotherapy, generic) without adding selection guidance the schema lacks.

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 names the specific resource (what Genko Prior Auth collects for a prior authorization request), scopes it to a specialty, and enumerates the returned content classes (request details, structured-findings fields, code systems). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_pricing or search_docs. The retrieving verb is only implicit, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It offers one usage cue, "Useful for 'what goes in a packet'," which implies the scenario but gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives. Siblings are unrelated enough that no routing guidance is strictly needed, but the description leaves context to inference rather than stating it.

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