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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the data source (federally required file), the dual output behavior (summary vs. payer-by-payer), automatic zero-padding for drg, and availability across ~2,060 hospitals. This goes beyond the schema and reveals important edge-case behavior, though it does not cover error handling or pagination if data is large.

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, each delivering essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then details the two invocation modes. No word is wasted, and the structure logically flows from general to specific.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers the primary use cases, parameter semantics, and a key limitation (availability flag). It could specify the exact fields returned in the payer-by-payer output, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains how `drg` changes the output structure (summary vs. individual rates), notes automatic zero-padding, and clarifies the interaction with `limit` (ignored when drg is provided). This enriches the static schema descriptions.

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's function: retrieving payer-negotiated hospital rates from machine-readable files. It distinguishes between two modes (summary vs. individual DRG rates), which immediately differentiates it from siblings like get_facility or search_facilities. The verb 'parsed' and resource 'payer-negotiated rates' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use each mode (with/without drg) and mentions the availability flag, which implicitly guides when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_facility_profile or search_facilities, but the focus on rate data makes the use case evident.

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