Get Patient Authorizations

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it returns computed status values (active/exhausted/expired/pending), payer contact info, and an expiring-soon warning. This helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope; the second concisely enumerates the useful returned fields. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the key return aspects: auth number, visit counts, dates, computed status, payer contact info, and expiring-soon warning. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a straightforward read-only lookup this is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter, patientId, is already described as 'Tebra patient ID'. The description does not add further detail about the parameter, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Get') and resource ('insurance authorizations for a Tebra patient'), and adds scope ('across all cases and policies'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tebra_check_insurance_eligibility, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the description: an agent should call this when it needs a patient's insurance authorizations and their status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose, such as eligibility checking.

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