get_nhi_coverage

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 the result handling behavior (preserving structuredContent fields) but does not mention error cases, authentication needs, or rate limits. The mention of versioned outputSchema adds some transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) and efficient. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides agent contract. No irrelevant details, but the contract could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 an output schema exists and no annotations, the description covers main purpose and result handling. However, it omits details on error states or coverage interpretation. For a moderate-complexity tool, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps.

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%, with locale and output_format described but drug_name only titled. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond stating the tool checks a drug's coverage. It does not specify drug_name format or provide usage examples, failing to fully compensate for schema gaps.

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 checks NHI coverage for a drug, using a specific verb (check) and resource (NHI coverage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_nhi_drug_price and list_nhi_coverage_rules by focusing on coverage status and details.

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 includes an agent contract that tells the agent how to handle the result (use structuredContent as source of truth, preserve fields). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_drug or get_drug_info, though the context of NHI coverage is implied.

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