full_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool chains multiple services in one metered request and is the cheapest way. However, it does not mention any destructive behavior, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral insight is moderate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is earned, no fluff. Jargon like 'procedure ontology' is concise and targeted to the domain.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and medium complexity, the description covers the main concepts but lacks details on return format, what 'procedure ontology' means, and the distinction between plan_* inputs. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning by stating that liability requires plan_* inputs, implying their purpose. It does not detail each parameter individually. This adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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: to get a complete estimate including procedure ontology, cost, providers, and liability in one call. The phrase 'one call chaining' and 'cheapest way' distinguishes it from similar tools that might handle only one aspect.

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 guidance on using the 'fields' parameter to request subsets and mentions that liability requires plan_* inputs. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like estimate_procedure_cost or find_providers, but the context implies when to consider this tool for a complete picture.

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