Anonymous cost estimate. Returns $low–$high range computed from regional + case factors. Deterministic on identical inputs. PII fields are rejected — use quote_for_case for the PII path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | ||
| case_factors | Yes | ||
| procedure_slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: anonymity, deterministic output on identical inputs, PII field rejection, and the nature of the return value (a low–high range). While it could mention more (e.g., error handling), it covers the key operational behaviors.
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 concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides distinct value: what it does, its deterministic property, and the PII/alternative note. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool with nested parameters and no output schema, this description covers the essential context: return format, determinism, PII handling, and distinction from a sibling tool. It does not elaborate on input constraints or error cases, but given the complexity, it is reasonably complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the range is computed from 'regional + case factors', implicitly mapping to zip and case_factors, but does not mention procedure_slug. It also notes PII fields are rejected, adding some semantic value. However, given the low coverage, more explicit parameter explanation would be needed for full compensation.
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 tool's function: providing an anonymous cost estimate with a $low–$high range. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool quote_for_case by explicitly noting the PII rejection, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool (anonymous, non-PII inputs) and when to use the alternative (quote_for_case for PII path). This direct comparison provides strong usage guidance.
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 are clearly distinct, but estimate_procedure_cost and quote_for_case overlap significantly (quote_for_case without PII behaves identically to estimate_procedure_cost). Also, find_specialists_by_procedure duplicates the clinic-finder portion of get_procedure when state is supplied, though descriptions clarify the different focus.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (list, get, search, estimate, quote, find). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action and target resource.
Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a directory service. Each tool serves a distinct purpose related to browsing procedures, specialties, clinics, or generating estimates, with no obvious bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core directory workflows: listing/retrieving procedures and specialties, searching clinics, fetching clinic details, and estimating costs. Minor gaps include lack of a direct 'list clinics by specialty' tool and no way to manage or update directory entries, but these are not critical for a read-only directory.
