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

Adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that amounts 'may represent funding routed through an institution and should not automatically be attributed as personal compensation'. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or extra information.

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 key behavioral nuance (attribution warning) and main filter options. However, it does not mention pagination or that no parameters are required (year implied but not explicit). Output schema exists, partially mitigating the need for return value details.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description compensates poorly; it names only 4 of 8 parameters (company, recipient NPI, study, state) and omits year, limit, offset, minimum_amount. The example in schema helps but the description text should provide more detail.

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 explicitly states 'Search CMS research-payment records' with specific filter fields (company, recipient NPI, study name, or state), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like open_payments_search or open_payments_company.

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 via the listed filters and 'for one program year', but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools or any exclusions.

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