tebra_get_patient_authorizations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only lists return fields without behavioral context.

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: first clearly states the purpose, second lists return values. No redundant or missing words. Front-loaded with key information, achieving high conciseness.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which would make it more complete for agent reasoning.

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% for the single parameter 'patientId', so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Tebra patient ID' — just specifying that it returns authorizations for that patient across all cases. No format or source details are added.

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 action ('Get all authorizations'), the resource ('Tebra patient'), the scope ('across all cases'), and the returned data fields (auth number, visits, expiry, CPT codes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tebra_get_patient or tebra_get_appointments.

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 implies usage for retrieving authorizations but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like tebra_search_patients or tebra_get_encounter. No explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisite context is provided.

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