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

The annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces these with concrete prohibited actions (start Apify run, checkout, contact applicants, purchase). It also adds useful context about validation, row count, source dates, and limitations beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and expected result. Every phrase adds specific information without filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines the return contents (source dates, national counts, limitations, optional handoff) and the data scope. The simple optional parameter and strong annotations make the description sufficiently complete for a read-only preview 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?

The only parameter, states, is fully documented in the input schema with description, pattern, and maxItems. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about how filtering works, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the exact resource: a current validated 10-row public preview of behavioral-health NPIs newly present in CMS pending enrollment files. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on this preview data rather than revalidation dates or automation offers.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get the public preview) and explicitly states what it cannot do (start an Apify run, open checkout, contact applicants, or purchase anything). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools, so it does not receive a 5.

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