feegow_list_procedure_insurances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the HTTP method (GET) and that it lists insurances. No mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, pagination, or error handling for missing procedures.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical HTTP endpoint, no wasted words. Every part is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with no output schema. The description adequately explains the input options but lacks details on output format, pagination, or typical use cases. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of procedimentoID and nomeProcedimento, stating that if one is missing the other must be provided. It also explains the query parameter as additional key/value pairs.

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 lists all insurance plans accepted for a procedure, using specific verb ('lista') and resource ('convênios aceitos para um procedimento'). It distinguishes from siblings like feegow_list_insurances (all insurances) and feegow_professional_insurances (by professional) by being procedure-specific.

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: provide procedimentoID or, if absent, the exact nomeProcedimento. It does not compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing exclusions.

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