PA/WOPD catalog exposure report (up to 100 codes)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructive false), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-code pricing ($0.01 × codes, max 100), that unknown/non-HCPCS codes are flagged but still billed, and that output is PHI-free JSON. It stops short of describing error handling or latency, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core mapping action, then layers the state caveat, output shape, pricing, and scope in a dense but logical order. Nearly every sentence carries distinct information, though the long second sentence is somewhat run-on.

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 return-value burden and does so well: it enumerates per-code return fields (PA requirement and effective date, F2F/WOPD, documentation gates, denial-risk flags), the catalog-level summary, and the paRequiredInSomeStates fallback. An agent has enough to decide whether the result answers its question.

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 each parameter is already documented (codes 1-100, state for phased-in items, dateOfService default today). The description's explanation of the state-dependent branch reinforces the schema rather than adding new parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — mapping a supplier HCPCS catalog against the CMS PA and F2F/WOPD lists on a date of service — with explicit scope (up to 100 codes, Original Medicare FFS). It does not name a sibling to differentiate from pa_required_check or pa_required_check-style tools, so the boundary has to be inferred from the batch scope.

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 state caveat ('with a state the answer is definitive; without one they are reported as required in some states') implies when to supply the state parameter, and the 100-code cap implies batching. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus pa_required_check/pa_predict, and no prerequisites are stated beyond scope.

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