count_appeal_precedents_for_rejection_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a 'signal-only summary' with no individual case exposure, and includes a disclaimer about predictive limitations. No contradictions with 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 is moderately sized but well-structured with bold markers for usage guidance. All sentences add value, though the URL at the end is slightly extraneous. Front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly enumerates return fields (volume bucket, win-rate, stages). The two parameters are fully documented, and sibling distinctions are provided. Sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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% and describes both parameters. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity constraint and provides concrete examples (e.g., '0312A', '86008C'), adding practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 it aggregates historical resolution summaries for NHI rejection or procedure codes, specifying return values (volume buckets, win-rate signals, stages). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool lookup_appeal_statistics_by_category by noting the latter covers broader categories.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' for triaging contestation viability, 'Don't use' for individual case details, and names the alternative tool for broader landscape. Also includes a disclaimer about historical signal not predicting future outcomes.

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