Get Contraindications & Anticoagulation Guidance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying that the tool includes guidance per agent, special considerations, and safety checks, and notes it is PREMIUM tier. It also warns that output should be verified, which is a useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Description is two sentences: the first clearly lists what the tool returns, the second provides an important caveat and tier. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the requirement to verify against guidelines, and the premium tier. Completeness is high for this 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% and the schema already describes the 'procedure' parameter as 'Procedure name, id, or CPT code.' The tool description merely says 'Given a procedure,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states that the tool returns bleeding-risk level and ASRA-aligned anticoagulant guidance for a given procedure, with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cpt_codes or get_procedure_list through its unique focus on anticoagulation guidance.

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?

The description implicitly advises using this tool when needing bleeding-risk and anticoagulation guidance, and explicitly warns to verify against current ASRA guidelines and institutional policy. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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