Dental cost by US state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns market research pricing data, not medical/financial advice, and hints at the comparison metric. It does not mention data freshness or error handling, but the enums in schema prevent invalid inputs. Overall, it is fairly transparent about behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an example and a disclaimer. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 3 parameters (all described in schema with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns (price range, national comparison, cost index) and includes a disclaimer. Some minor details (like pagination or exact format) are missing, but it adequately informs an agent.

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 meaning beyond the schema by illustrating how parameters work in context (e.g., 'procedure="implant", state="CA" returns...'). It reinforces that state is a two-letter code and procedure uses specific IDs. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'dental cost by state', specifies it returns low/average/high cash price compared to national average, and includes an example. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like dental_cost_by_city (city scope) and dental_national_average (national scope).

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 an explicit example (implant in CA) and explains the output. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the sibling context (e.g., by_city for city-level, national_average for national only) implies appropriate use cases. No exclusions are given, but the guidance is clear.

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