Check Insurance Eligibility

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

The description adds the caveat that this is an approximation based on on-file data and not a real-time check, which is beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides context about the reliability of the result.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the caveat is succinctly stated. No wasted 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the approximation caveat. It could mention what the response contains, but that's minor given the simplicity.

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?

The input schema already describes patientId as 'Tebra patient ID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it's at baseline.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'insurance eligibility' for a Tebra patient, and specifies it examines on-file policies and authorization history. It distinguishes from a real-time check, but does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 notes it's an approximation based on on-file data, not a real-time payer eligibility check, which implies when to use it (quick check) and when not (real-time need). However, it does not name an alternative tool or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it's only implied.

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