Find billing codes from a plain-language description

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful context: the source is the hospitals' own published free-text descriptions (implying messy/abbreviated data), and results combine each code with the hospitals publishing it and their descriptions. No auth or rate-limit detail, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it searches, what it returns, and how to reuse the result. The verb and data source are front-loaded ahead of examples and routing.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies the data-source nature, result composition, and downstream routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly missing.

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 75% and the schema itself already documents query matching ('every word must appear'), abbreviation hints, code_family, and hospital_id. The description's param-level value is confined to repeating example queries the schema already provides, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) on a specific resource (hospitals' own item descriptions in their price files) for a specific outcome (billing codes), with two concrete query examples. It names the sibling tools it feeds (compare_code_prices, get_payer_rates), so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream: 'Use the code with compare_code_prices or get_payer_rates', clarifying this is the entry point in a pricing workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. when you already have a code), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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