Batch medical code validation (up to 25 codes)

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: discloses pricing ($0.005 per code, capped at 25), the fields returned per item, that dateOfService is applied uniformly with today as default, and that an invalid code is still a billable answer (valid:false). That last point is unusually valuable behavioral context for a paid validation call.

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?

Three dense sentences, all front-loaded with the verb and scope first, then return shape, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the 'each judged as in a single validation' clause is slightly awkward and the sentence packing makes it feel compressed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value burden and does it by enumerating valid, active, asOf, warnings, errors and codeDetails. Combined with cost and default-date semantics, an agent has what it needs to call correctly; only the duplicate date-parameter aliasing is left undocumented.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by restating the date semantics with the default value and the uniform-application rule, and by tying array length to the price. codeType and the dateOfService/date_of_service aliasing are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate ... medical codes') plus the batch scope ('up to 25 in one call'), which implicitly separates it from the single-code code_validate and from code_lookup_batch. It also names the per-item judgement criteria (exists, valid on date of service), so an agent knows exactly what the tool decides.

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 batching context is clear (25-code cap, per-code price, date default) so an agent can tell this is the multi-code path and that cost scales with item count. It stops short of explicitly routing: neither code_validate nor code_lookup_batch is named, and there's no when-not to use it.

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