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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that any price field can be null when unpublished and that insurance_prices are negotiated rates rather than out-of-pocket costs. This is meaningful interpretive guidance beyond the annotations, though return format/pagination is left to the output schema.

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?

It is front-loaded (purpose first, then field semantics, then usage) and every sentence carries information an agent needs, especially the null caveat. The middle field-glossary sentence is dense but earns its place by preventing misinterpretation of the price fields.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not restate return structure; it complements those by explaining field meaning, nullability, and intended use. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing for non-hospital pricing queries.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents cpt_codes and hospital_ids (including array bounds and the search_hospitals provenance). The description adds no syntax, limits, or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific resource (hospital pricing) and what it returns (source-labeled Published MRF prices plus Loa Verified Provider Price overlays for CPT codes), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_entity_prices and get_market_pricing. The internal jargon ('Loa runtime data', 'MRF') is opaque but the hospital scope is unmistakable.

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 an explicit when-to-use clause: 'comparing named hospitals or checking a quoted hospital price against available source rows.' It does not state when NOT to use it or name the sibling to prefer for market-level or estimate queries, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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