Get Reimbursement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the payload is 'stored' (i.e., a precomputed read rather than a calculation) and enumerates the meaning of the `benefits` and `claimcalc` fields, but it says nothing about behavior for an unknown/invalid state (error vs empty result) or any access constraints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by compact field glosses and finally the parameter hint. Every sentence contributes, though the field-by-field breakdown of the return payload runs somewhat long given an output schema already exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still adds semantic meaning for `benefits` and `claimcalc` field names. Combined with the parameter format hint, the definition is nearly sufficient — only the failure mode for an unrecognized state is left unspecified.

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 for the single `state` parameter — and it does, clarifying that it accepts either a postal code or a state name. That format hint is not available anywhere in the schema and materially reduces malformed calls; accepted-value enumeration or case-sensitivity rules are the only gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the stored reimbursement JSON') scoped to a single state, which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (list_jurisdictions, get_jurisdiction, get_regulations), though the reimbursement topic is clearly distinct from jurisdiction lookup and regulation 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. An agent can infer that it calls this to fetch reimbursement figures for a state, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over get_regulations or what to do for a state that isn't supported.

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