calculate_liability

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's stateless nature and pure calculation behavior. It lists inputs and outputs comprehensively, including 'p25/p75 scenarios'. No contradictory annotations exist.

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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, inputs, outputs, and use case. It is front-loaded with 'Stateless insurance math', immediately informing the agent of the tool's nature. No filler words.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core function and highlights key output types. It implicitly differentiates from siblings via the 'already have a dollar amount' clause. While the output structure is not detailed, the description covers essential aspects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping inputs to real-world concepts ('plan snapshot (deductible, coinsurance, OOP max)'), but does not elaborate on optional parameters like 'copay' or 'preventive_exception'. The mention of 'p25/p75 scenarios' hints at additional computation not in schema, adding slight value.

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 performs 'stateless insurance math' to compute liability details, with specific inputs (allowed amount, plan snapshot) and outputs (patient responsibility, plan payment, breakdown, p25/p75 scenarios). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'estimate_procedure_cost' by specifying use case: when you already have a dollar amount.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use when you already have a dollar amount (e.g., from an EOB or a prior estimate).' This clarifies when to use this tool versus other estimation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names.

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