rank_operators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it explains ranking direction, defaults, the ANS same-size comparison constraint, and why tiny operators are excluded by default. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or permissions, but the ranking/query nature is clear and the output schema covers return structure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and concrete examples, then efficiently documents each parameter. Despite eight parameters, every line adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The description is substantially complete for a complex eight-parameter tool: all parameters are explained, output schema covers return values, and key caveats are included. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools such as compare_operators and find_operators.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all eight parameters. It does so thoroughly: it defines allowed values for by and coverage, explains porte thresholds, clarifies that uf means head-office state, gives modality examples, and documents defaults and limits.

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 a specific verb and resource: ranking active health-plan operators by complaints or quality. The example questions make the ranking purpose concrete, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as compare_operators or find_operators.

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?

It provides clear usage contexts through example questions like 'which large health plans get the fewest complaints?' and 'best-rated dental plans'. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools, but the intended use cases are clear.

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