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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description explains the returned national cash band, its observed/estimated basis, the states at both ends of the range, and that cosmetic procedures carry no state variation. It also discloses data provenance ('source URL and period on every figure') and safety limits ('not a quote, not medical advice').

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: the core use case comes first, followed by return details, examples, exclusions, and provenance. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or interpretation, and the examples are directly useful for multilingual routing.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: band values, basis, endpoint states, cosmetic exception, and data source. It also covers scope limits and non-goals, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the procedure enum and language parameter are already well documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting that the procedure must be one of the 12, which is already captured by the enum.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: national US dental procedure cost for one of 12 procedures when no state is named. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings such as dental_cost_by_state and canada_dental_cost_by_province by scoping the answer to the US overall.

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 states when to use the tool ('no state named'), provides concrete example phrasings, and lists explicit exclusions such as diagnosis, insurer plan prices, and non-US/Canada countries. It does not name the exact alternative sibling tools to use for named states or Canada, so routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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