lookup_procedure_codePlain-English description of a CPT/HCPCS procedure code and its category, from public code references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpt_code | Yes | CPT / HCPCS-J code ('99213', 'J1885') or keyword ('knee MRI', 'colonoscopy'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context ('from public code references') but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as handling of invalid codes, multiple keyword matches, or output format variations. This is adequate but minimal.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes useful qualifiers like 'plain-English' and 'from public code references.' Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant.
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 read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter, the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns (description and category). It does not mention potential multiple matches for keywords, but this is a minor gap given the simple scope and annotation coverage.
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?
The input schema fully documents the cpt_code parameter with examples, allowed formats, and max length. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage a baseline of 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 a specific action: providing a plain-English description and category for a CPT/HCPCS procedure code. It also names the resource type and differentiates from sibling tools like explain_denial_code by specifying procedure codes.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tool comparisons, leaving routing decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.