get_rejection_code_category

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds useful context: returns up to 50 results, categories listed, reference to authoritative source, and curation by OPDSTAR. No contradiction 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?

Every sentence serves a purpose. Usage guidelines are front-loaded with bold markers. Categories listed compactly. No redundancy or filler. Excellent structure.

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, description specifies return fields (code, severity, short description) and limit (50 per call). Covers categories, usage context, and authority. Complete for a browsing 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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). Description lists category codes inline, which duplicates enum but adds no new semantic value beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?

Clear verb 'browse' with specific resource 'Taiwan NHI rejection codes' and scope 'by category (00-09)'. Distinguishes from sibling 'lookup_rejection_code' by explicitly contrasting discovery vs. known code lookup.

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 states when to use (enumerate within workflow domain) and when not to (look up known code), with named alternative 'lookup_rejection_code'. Bold markers clearly demarcate guidance.

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