get_rejection_code_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: returns code, severity, short description, up to 50 per call, and curated by OPDSTAR. No contradiction.

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?

Concise and well-structured: opens with purpose, lists categories, then usage guidelines, and ends with reference note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a browsing tool with 2 parameters, the description covers what is returned, limitations (up to 50 per call), and sourcing. No output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the return data. The tool is self-contained and clear.

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% with good descriptions. Description adds value by listing category codes with Chinese translations and clarifying the purpose of the opdstar_relevant_only filter implicitly via the 'up to 50 per call' limit. This goes beyond the enum values.

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?

Clearly states 'Browse Taiwan NHI rejection codes by category' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool `lookup_rejection_code` by explicitly stating when not to use it for specific code lookups.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when an agent needs to enumerate all rejection codes within a workflow domain' and 'Don't use to look up a known specific code — call lookup_rejection_code instead.' Also notes reference-only nature and authoritative source.

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