lookup_audit_indicator

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds nuance: 'Reference only — thresholds change with each official release,' and describes what the tool returns, which is consistent with a safe, read-only operation. No contradictions.

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 concise (under 150 words) and well-structured: first sentence defines the resource, then usage guidance, then parameter omission behavior, then exclusions, then limitations and credit. Bolded cues enhance readability.

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's moderate complexity (4 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, usage boundaries, return fields, and update frequency. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, even in a rich sibling context.

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 each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining how to browse by omitting indicator_code ('Omit indicator_code to browse by category / specialty / procedure') and provides an example that ties parameters together. However, since the schema already covers parameter definitions well, the added semantics are modest but meaningful.

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 specifies the resource (Taiwan NHI threshold-based audit rules) and the verb (look up). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_indicator' by explicitly noting that prescribing-pattern indicators are handled elsewhere.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use when an agent needs to know whether a procedure code is under a percentage-cap audit') and when not to use ('Don't use for prescribing-pattern indicators... those live in get_indicator'), with a concrete example. This provides clear decision guidance.

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