National average dental cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states the output includes low/avg/high cash prices and cheapest/prisest state, plus the disclaimer that it's market research data, not advice. This adequately discloses the read-only, non-destructive nature and the data source. No hidden side effects are mentioned, but none are expected for a read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. It starts with the core action ('Get the US national average...') and front-loads the most important information. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: low/avg/high cash prices and cheapest/priciest state. It also provides a disclaimer about the nature of the data. No critical details appear missing for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only gives an example ('procedure="veneer"'). The schema already has comprehensive enum descriptions for procedure and lang. Thus, the description adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

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?

Description explicitly states it retrieves the US national average cost for a dental procedure, including low/avg/high prices and cheapest/priciest states. The verb 'Get' and resource 'national average dental cost' are clear, and the example 'procedure="veneer"' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes well from sibling tools that focus on city or state averages.

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?

While no explicit 'use this when' or direct comparison to siblings, the description clearly defines the scope as 'US national average' and 'mean across all 51 states + DC'. The sibling names (dental_cost_by_city, dental_cost_by_state, out_of_pocket_estimate) themselves indicate alternative scopes, so an agent can infer that this tool is for nationwide averages. The disclaimer about market research data provides a usage note.

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