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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying what is returned (cost per case medians, revenue mix percentages) and providing a concrete example with quartile analysis and source information (ASCA and CMS 2024 composite). This goes beyond simple read-only indication and helps the agent understand output interpretation.

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 about 70 words and front-loaded with usage context. The example sentence is a bit long and contains a confusing quartile statement, but it provides useful illustrative information. The structure is logical (usage, returns, example, source) and not overly verbose, though the example could be tightened.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to fully explain parameters and return structure. It gives a high-level output summary and an example, but does not mention the state parameter or explain how filtering works. It is adequate but has clear gaps, making it minimally acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (state, specialty). It mentions specialty in the output ('by specialty') and the example uses 'Orthopedic,' but it never explicitly explains that the specialty parameter filters or groups results. State is completely omitted. The description fails to adequately clarify parameter meaning.

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: 'Returns cost per case medians and revenue mix percentages by specialty.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and the ASC context distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools like get_cms_facility_benchmark. The use cases (benchmarking ASC financial performance, evaluating acquisitions, board reports) further clarify its purpose.

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 explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Use when benchmarking ASC financial performance, evaluating an ASC acquisition, or preparing an administrator board report.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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