List Pain Procedures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the return structure (grouped by category, fields included) and optional filtering. No contradiction, and the description provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 sentences: first states primary purpose and return content, second mentions optional filter and tier. Front-loaded, no unnecessary detail, every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple catalog list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return fields, grouping, and filtering. It could mention whether results are paginated or limited, but given openWorldHint=false, a static catalog is implied.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description ('filter by a category id or name'). No additional semantics are added beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a catalog of interventional pain medicine procedures, grouped by category, with specific fields (id, name, CPT codes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cpt_codes which return code lists, not procedure catalogs.

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 implies use for getting procedure IDs to use with other tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_cpt_codes or get_icd10_codes. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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