Convenience: combines get_procedure + state filter. Returns the ranked specialist finder list for a procedure in a given state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | Yes | 2-letter state slug. | |
| procedure | Yes | Procedure slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked list and is a convenience wrapper, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination or other behavioral details that could be relevant.
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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key concept ('Convenience') and immediately explains the tool's behavior, making 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 the simple schema (3 params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and relationship to get_procedure. It does not cover the limit parameter's behavior or return format, but those are inferable from the schema and the 'list' wording.
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 67% (procedure and state have descriptions; limit does not). The description adds only marginal value by clarifying that the result is filtered by state, but it does not elaborate on the 'slug' format or explain the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
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: it combines get_procedure with a state filter and returns a ranked specialist finder list. This specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('ranked specialist finder list') clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_procedure.
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 'Convenience' framing implies this tool should be used when you need both a procedure lookup and a state filter together, rather than calling get_procedure separately. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative approaches, leaving some room for interpretation.
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.
