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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: annual counts are authoritative, dollar figures cover only a bounded sample, and company aliases may split or combine legal entities. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.) are consistent and do not contradict.

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 single-sentence description is concise, front-loads the action and input, and includes essential caveats (authoritative counts, sampled dollars, alias splitting) without excess verbiage.

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?

The description covers purpose, sample behavior, and alias handling. With an output schema present, missing return value explanations are acceptable. However, parameters 'payment_type' and 'sample_per_year' are not addressed, leaving a gap in completeness for a 5-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description only implicitly explains 'company' (substring) and 'from_year/to_year' (cross-year). The parameters 'payment_type' (enum with values) and 'sample_per_year' are not explained. The mention of 'bounded sample' hints at sampling but does not specify the parameter.

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 builds a 'cross-year CMS Open Payments history for a company-name substring', specifying the action (build history), data source (CMS Open Payments), and key input (company-name substring). It distinguishes from siblings like open_payments_company (likely single year) and open_payments_compare_companies by emphasizing the cross-year aspect.

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 implies usage for multi-year historical queries via 'cross-year', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., open_payments_company for single year). No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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