lookup_audit_clauses_for_specialty

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool provides 'clause headlines with risk flags and a short preview' and asserts the data is a preview, not authoritative. This adds useful behavioral context beyond 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 two sentences long, with clear structure: purpose, then use/don't use, then reference caveat. Every sentence adds value. No filler or 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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters (1 required), full schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers usage context, behavioral caveats, and source attribution. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (specialty, keyword, risk_flag) with examples and enum values. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what is in the schema, though it reiterates risk flag types. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Browse Taiwan NHI 審查注意事項 clauses for a specific medical specialty' with a list of example specialties. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool `lookup_audit_clauses_for_procedure` by indicating scope (specialty vs. procedure code).

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use' guidance, including the exact sibling tool to use instead for procedure-specific queries. It also signals that the output is a reference preview, not authoritative, setting correct expectations.

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