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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the ordered resolution path (CMS ADLT list, brand-to-code MAAA table, NCBI GTR live) and the brand_not_found failure mode naming every source checked. No notes on auth or rate limits, keeping it below a 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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the resolution order is well sequenced. The long enumerations of brand names and MAAA tests are verbose but serve semantic matching, so they mostly earn their place.

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 fully carries the burden: it names the return fields (code, lab, payment, LCDs/articles), the accepted input variants, the source systems, and the not-found contract. An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the include_retired rationale. The description adds only brand/lab/code examples, which partly duplicates the schema's own examples, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (branded molecular/genomic lab test) and enumerates exactly what it returns: CPT PLA/HCPCS code, running lab, Medicare CLFS payment, and MolDX LCDs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like medicare_lab_rate or medicare_pricing_coverage.

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 example queries ('what does Medicare pay for Signatera') and accepted input forms (brand, lab name, code), plus the fallback behavior when nothing is found. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of the explicit when-not routing that would earn a 5.

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