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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context itself. It states the operation is free and requires no authentication, which is important context. It also discloses what the response contains, effectively describing the read-only nature without explicitly stating 'read-only'. While it doesn't explicitly say it makes no modifications, the verb 'Returns' and the absence of any write-related language make that clear enough, though a direct statement would push this to 5.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the output; the second gives usage context and authentication info. No redundant or filler language.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the response fields (title, category, statute, link) and even describes the linked page's content. It also covers the intended use cases and authentication requirements, making it a complete description for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, including examples and guidance to use list_dispute_scenarios first. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('one MediBill Saver dispute scenario') and the exact content of the summary (title, category, statute, link). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_dispute_scenarios by focusing on a single scenario selected by slug, and includes example user queries that clarify its 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?

Provides explicit usage triggers: 'when a patient asks how do I dispute X or what is HIPAA §164.524'. Additionally, the parameter description in the schema directs the agent to use list_dispute_scenarios first if unsure about the slug, giving a clear alternative path.

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