lookup_audit_clauses_for_specialty

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds value by stating 'Reference only — official 健保署 審查注意事項 (current edition) is authoritative; clause summaries are previews.' This informs the agent about the limitations of the data. 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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with clear structure: purpose, use case, alternative, and reference note. Bolded key phrases aid readability. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains what is returned (clause headlines, risk flags, preview). It covers usage context and limitations. Could mention result format or pagination, but still strong overall.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It lists example specialties and risk flags, but these are already covered in the schema. 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?

Description clearly states 'Browse Taiwan NHI 審查注意事項 clauses for a specific medical specialty' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool `lookup_audit_clauses_for_procedure` by explicitly stating when not to use this tool and naming the alternative.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when an agent needs section-wide audit context before assisting with claim coding for a specialty.' It also clearly says 'Don't use for clauses tied to a known specific procedure code' and provides the exact alternative tool name.

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