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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, closed-world profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: a confidence score is returned, alternatives are offered, and best_match is null on a miss — the most important edge case for a resolver.

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 tight sentences: the primary action and output shape come first, the null-on-miss edge case second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (best_match, alternatives, confidence). It stops short of explaining how the confidence score should be interpreted or what a caller should do when best_match is null, which would round out a resolver contract.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a notch above by demonstrating the acceptable free-text form ('knee mri', 'gallbladder removal'), clarifying that lay phrasing rather than codes is expected.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource ('Maps a free-text procedure name ... to a CostKits catalog slug') and illustrates the input space with two realistic examples. It is clearly distinct from sibling catalog tools like list_procedures or get_procedure_details, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this is the normalizer to run before any tool needing a catalog slug, but the description never states when to use it versus listing/detail tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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