Get Research Evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description does not contradict. Description adds valuable behavioral context: output specifics (fields returned) and 'PREMIUM tier' indicating access restrictions, enhancing transparency 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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and output, second adds tier information. No verbose or redundant text.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explicitly lists return fields (evidence grade, summary, studies with details). Provides usage context ('notes and appeals'). Complete for a simple query 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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage), so description adds no extra parameter meaning. 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns evidence grade, summary, and supporting studies for a given procedure. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cpt_codes and get_procedure_list, which deal with different aspects of medical data.

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?

Explicitly states the output is 'for use in notes and appeals,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or offer alternative tools, though no direct sibling alternatives exist.

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