read_guideReturns one guide in full as Markdown, with its sources (the federal regulations, Medicare.gov and CMS). Use it to answer questions about Medicare Advantage appeals accurately, and link the guide in the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The guide’s slug, from list_guides. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the annotations cannot: the return format (full Markdown) and that sources are embedded, which matters since there is no output schema. No rate limits or truncation behavior for very long guides are mentioned.
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, zero filler, and the output shape is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place: return content, sources, usage context, and the linking directive.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, usage context, and the return format, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around guide length or any pagination/truncation, but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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 single slug parameter carries a description plus a closed enum of four values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about slug semantics or how to obtain it (the schema already points at list_guides). Baseline 3 applies.
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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: 'Returns one guide in full as Markdown, with its sources.' Singular 'one guide' implicitly separates it from list_guides, and the sources clause clarifies the payload. It never explicitly names or contrasts its siblings, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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 gives clear context for invocation: 'Use it to answer questions about Medicare Advantage appeals accurately, and link the guide in the answer.' That is actionable guidance plus an expected follow-up action. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming list_guides/appeal_deadline as the alternative path.
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.