search_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions search modes and gives examples, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (e.g., list of policy summaries), pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage context, mentions search modes, and gives three helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are directly relevant to demonstrating tool usage without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and usage, it lacks crucial information about what the tool returns (no output schema means the description should explain response format), behavioral constraints, and error handling. For a search tool with many filtering options, users need to understand what results look like and how to interpret them.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'keyword and semantic search modes' (covered by the mode parameter) and gives examples that show query usage and policy_type filtering. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like jurisdiction, payer, or include beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Search Medicare coverage policies (LCDs, NCDs, Articles).' It specifies the resource (Medicare coverage policies) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_policy' (retrieve specific policy) or 'compare_policies' (compare multiple policies). The examples reinforce the search functionality.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to find policies related to procedures, conditions, or coverage questions.' It mentions search modes (keyword/semantic) which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or when to prefer alternatives like 'get_policy' for retrieving a specific known policy or 'search_criteria' for searching within policy criteria.

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