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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results appear in 'items' and what each hit contains, including coding flags, outpatient surgery information, and DKR/SEG-4 references. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action and then packs high-value details about what the results contain. No sentence is wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 that the schema fully documents all parameters, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit comparison with sibling search/lookup tools, but that is a usage-guidance concern rather than a fatal completeness issue.

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 schema already documents query, year, and limit thoroughly. The description does not add much beyond the schema for parameter semantics; it restates that query can be a code or text, but that information is already in the parameter description.

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 the OPS catalog by code or procedure text, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling opsalpha_search or ops_get, though the emphasis on the main OPS catalog and result contents helps narrow the purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to search OPS codes or procedure texts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as ops_get for lookups or opsalpha_search for the alphabetic index, so the guidance is only implied.

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