reimbursement_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the outputs (payment mechanisms, amounts, dates, links) and clarifies that CPT codes are bare identifiers. However, it omits details on error handling, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, includes examples, and summarizes the answer. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 and no annotations, the description covers inputs, outputs (payment mechanisms, amounts, dates, links), and special notes (CPT codes as bare identifiers). It lacks error handling or edge cases, but for a lookup tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples (DEN170073, 75580) and explaining the function of each parameter (FDA clearance number vs. bare CPT code). It also warns that CPT codes are bare identifiers requiring official source lookup, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Trace the clearance-to-payment pathway') and a clear resource (AI/ML device by FDA clearance number or CPT code). It defines what it returns (payment mechanisms, amounts, dates) and answers a specific question, distinguishing it from vague siblings like reimbursement_search.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like reimbursement_search or reimbursement_stats. It lacks exclusions or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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