get_payment_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool is decision_support_only, requires verification of official source, is not validated for hospital deployment, and not for claim determination. It also warns against inputting patient data and clarifies the output is original official text, not AI instructions. This is meaningful beyond schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature or side effects.

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 brief, front-loading the core purpose, then listing constraints and a Chinese usage note. It is efficient but slightly choppy with semicolon-separated flags; still, every sentence adds value.

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 single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides key safety and usage constraints (decision support, no patient data, official text output). However, it does not describe the query format or what constitutes 'exact-code', which is essential for correct invocation. It is moderately complete but has notable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the query is an exact code ('exact-code notes') but does not specify format, allowed values, or examples. The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter name 'query'.

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 NHI exact-code notes, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_submission_rule or search_payment_items, but the 'exact-code notes' phrasing distinguishes it from general search or submission rule retrieval.

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 gives constraints (decision_support_only, not_for_claim_determination) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions that select this tool over siblings such as get_submission_rule or search_payment_items.

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