estimate_procedure_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that outputs include ranges (not single numbers), conditional out-of-pocket calculation based on insurance details, and the need to resolve free-text procedures. It does not mention authorization requirements or side effects, but the behavioral description is sufficiently detailed for an estimation tool.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the primary purpose and outputs. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence is purposeful.

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 (7 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: inputs, conditional logic, output format (ranges, data_vintage), and a cross-reference to resolve_procedure. It could be more explicit about return value structure, but it is complete enough for selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that insurance parameters (oop_remaining, coinsurance_pct, deductible_remaining) trigger out-of-pocket estimation and clarifying acceptable inputs for 'procedure' (slug or plain name).

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 uses specific verbs ('Estimate') and identifies the resource ('medical procedure costs in a US state'). It enumerates distinct outputs (allowed-amount range, billing components, risk flags, out-of-pocket) and hints at the prerequisite use of resolve_procedure, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises using resolve_procedure first for free-text procedure names, and instructs to present ranges and cite data_vintage. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other siblings like full_estimate or demo_estimate, though the context is clear.

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