reimbursement_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns pathways with amounts, effective dates, and sources, and lists filters. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then return info and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the main purpose and filters, and mentions return fields. However, it does not explain the limit parameter behavior, pagination, or result structure. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks detail for nuanced queries.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description lists filter categories (mechanism, CPT category, NTAP status, applicant) but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides. For the two undocumented parameters (limit, ntap_status), the description offers no extra clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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 finds AI/ML device payment pathways by mechanism, with specific examples (e.g., 'devices that got NTAP', 'pathways with a known CMS dollar rate'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool reimbursement_stats by noting that tool provides distribution, not a single rate.

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 gives explicit guidance to use reimbursement_stats for mechanism distribution, telling the agent when not to use this tool. It does not, however, address other sibling tools like reimbursement_lookup or evidence_search, but the provided alternative is clear and actionable.

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