tebra_get_procedure_codes

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the operation retrieves data (read-only), can be filtered, and returns specific fields. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, though for a read operation this is acceptable. The description does not contradict any 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about filtering and return values. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the optional filter, and what is returned. No critical information is missing for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'searchTerm' already described as 'Optional CPT code or search term to filter by'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves procedure codes configured in the Tebra practice. It specifies the ability to filter by CPT code or search term and indicates the return includes descriptions and default fees. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like tebra_get_charges or tebra_get_appointment_reasons.

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 procedure codes with optional filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided on when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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