Healthparse Healthcare Data Gateway

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, disclose rate limits, authorization needs, or behavior on invalid CCN. The pricing note is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency. The 'Answers' phrasing implies a read operation but is not explicit.

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 plus pricing, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and a concrete question it answers, earning its place efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return type (quality ratings and performance measures). It does not cover errors or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient.

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%, providing the parameter 'ccn' with description 'Path parameter: CMS Certification Number'. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema (just restates 'by CCN'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema itself is adequate.

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 specifies 'quality record by CCN for a dialysis' and answers 'what are the quality ratings and performance measures for this facility?', distinguishing it from sibling tools targeting other facility types (e.g., home-health, hospice, hospitals). The resource (dialysis) and identifier (CCN) are explicit.

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 states the tool answers quality ratings and performance measures for a facility given a CCN, implying use when that data is needed. However, it does not mention the sibling search tool (carecompare_dialysis_search) or provide guidance on when to use this vs. other similar tools, missing explicit exclusionary or alternative context.

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

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

The description discloses the data source (CMS Care Compare, monthly refresh) and cost ($0.02/call), but does not clarify default behavior when no parameters are provided, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. No annotations exist to compensate.

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 plus source/cost note. Front-loaded with purpose and common use case. Every sentence adds value without 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?

No output schema; description does not specify return structure (e.g., list of facilities, quality metrics, pagination details). For a search tool with 7 optional parameters, key context is missing for effective agent use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It mentions state, city, ZIP (zip_prefix), and CMS star rating (rating_min/rating_max), but omits limit and offset. It also lacks detail on parameter formats or ranges.

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 searches dialysis quality data by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating, distinguishing it from sibling tools like carecompare_dialysis_byCcn. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Usage is implied through the listed search criteria ('by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating'), but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like byCcn. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns quality ratings and performance measures, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on response format, authentication, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise at two sentences plus a price note. It front-loads the purpose and key information with no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the data source (CMS Care Compare), the facility type (home health), and the response contents (quality ratings and performance measures). Could mention the output is a single record, but overall adequate.

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 single parameter 'ccn' is described in the input schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves CMS Care Compare quality ratings and performance measures for a home health facility by CCN. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling tools for other facility types (e.g., dialysis, hospitals) and search variants.

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 when you have a CCN and need home health quality data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search tools for the same facility type or other _byCcn tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions source and price but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication. It's adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentences with front-loaded action and answer, plus relevant source/cost info. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema and incomplete parameter descriptions, but the description covers the core purpose and typical use case for a search 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 coverage is 0%, and description only mentions high-level filter types (state, city, ZIP, rating) without explaining each parameter's semantics or constraints.

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 it searches home health quality data by state, city, ZIP, or CMS star rating, and answers a specific market question. It distinguishes from siblings like dialysis, hospitals, etc.

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 when to use (searching home health by location/rating) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the source and price but lacks disclosure of error handling, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens when the CCN is invalid. Behavioral traits are minimal.

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 sentences plus source/price information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the function without unnecessary words.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned (quality ratings and performance measures). It lacks details on output format or error cases, but given the simplicity, it is relatively complete.

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%; the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides (ccn is described as CMS Certification Number). The description does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 returns a CMS Care Compare quality record for a hospice by CCN, and explicitly answers what quality ratings and performance measures are provided. It distinguishes from sibling tools like carecompare_hospice_search by specifying 'by CCN'.

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 indicates the tool is for looking up quality records by CCN, but does not explicitly advise when to use this vs. the search sibling. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid using this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses data source (CMS Care Compare, monthly refresh) and cost ($0.02/call). Does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with verb and filters, explicitly states the business question answered, source, and price. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core use but lacks details on output structure, pagination, and filter combination rules. Adequate for a simple search, but could be more helpful.

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?

Description mentions filter dimensions but does not explain valid formats, interactions (e.g., city vs. state), or constraints for 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage. Schema lacks descriptions, so description should compensate more.

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?

Clear verb 'Search' and resource 'hospice quality data' with specific filter dimensions (state, city, ZIP, star rating). Distinct from sibling tools like byCcn variants.

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?

States when to use: querying by location or rating. Implicitly avoids direct CCN lookups (sibling tools). Could be more explicit about alternatives but context is strong.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01/call) which is a behavioral trait, but does not mention other aspects like idempotency, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The basic purpose is clear, but deeper behavioral context is lacking.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, source, and cost. The key action is front-loaded, and every word delivers value with no wasted content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its function. It could optionally mention whether the result is a single record or full details, but it is complete enough for a lookup 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter ccn described as 'Path parameter: CMS Certification Number'. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data is (quality ratings/performance measures), but does not otherwise enrich the parameter definition beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns quality ratings and performance measures for a hospital, identified by CCN. It includes the source (CMS Care Compare) and provides a natural language question that matches the tool's function. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other facility types.

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 when a user has a CCN and wants quality data for a specific hospital, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., search tools) or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions data source and refresh frequency (CMS Care Compare, monthly) and pricing ($0.02/call), which add transparency, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, idempotency, or whether the tool is purely read-only. For a search tool, the core behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus source and price note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on pagination parameters (limit/offset), the structure of results, and how to combine multiple filters. It answers the 'what' but not the 'how' of data retrieval comprehensively.

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. It covers filters like state, city, ZIP, and star rating, which map to parameters, but does not explain limit, offset, or the exact meaning of rating min/max fields. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for the 7 parameters.

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: searching hospitals quality data by various filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'hospitals' and the market-level question it answers, setting it apart from specific institutional lookups (byCcn) or other care types.

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 gives a high-level use case question ('which hospitals meet quality thresholds in a market?') but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., carecompare_hospitals_byCcn) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling list contains many search tools; no comparative guidance is given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions price per call and source but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or whether operation is read-only. Some context but incomplete.

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?

One sentence plus Q&A and source/price. Concise and front-loaded. Could be more structured but efficient.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers main purpose but lacks details on return fields, error handling, or pagination. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'ccn'. Description mentions CCN but adds no additional detail on format or constraints beyond schema. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves CMS Care Compare quality record by CCN for a SNF, answering what quality ratings and performance measures for the facility. Distinguishes from sibling search tools and other facility types.

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?

Specifies input is a CCN number, but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus the sibling search tool if CCN is unknown. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the data source (CMS Care Compare) and refresh frequency (monthly), and indicates it is a read operation. It could add details on pagination or auth, but the provided context is adequate for safe usage.

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 with front-loaded action and scope. No wasted words; the price note is helpful but separate. Perfectly sized for an AI to quickly parse.

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 answers the core question (which SNFs meet thresholds) but lacks details on result format, pagination behavior, and how multiple filters combine. For a search tool with 7 params and no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description covers 5 of 7 parameters (city, state, zip_prefix, overall_rating_min/max) by naming their purposes. However, it omits 'limit' and 'offset', which control pagination, reducing parameter clarity.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'snf quality data', with specific filter dimensions (state, city, ZIP, star rating). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'carecompare_snf_byCcn' which targets individual facilities by CCN.

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 this tool is for market-level quality searches by location or rating, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools (e.g., byCcn for specific facilities) or mention any prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the data source and call cost but does not disclose behaviors like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens on empty results.

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 with no wasted words. It includes essential information (search types, use case, source, cost) efficiently.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the response format, default behavior for omitted parameters, or constraints beyond schema defaults. It is incomplete for a search 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%. The description partially compensates by listing state, CCN, and name as search criteria, but does not explain the purpose of limit, offset, or the exact format needed (e.g., CCN format).

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 specifies the resource (ambulatory surgical centers), the action (search), and the search criteria (state, CCN, or name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target other healthcare entities.

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 states a use case ('which ASCs are in a given market?') and implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on ASCs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. Only mentions cost ($0.01/call). Minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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 sentences front-loaded with purpose and response contents. Cost appended efficiently. No wasted words.

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?

Describes what the tool returns (identity, beds, discharges, revenues, net income, operating margin). Lacks mention of error handling or data scope (e.g., range of fiscal years). Good for a simple retrieval 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 covers the only parameter (ccn) fully. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'CMS Certification Number'. Baseline score is appropriate as no gaps but no added semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a hospital's cost-report record by CCN, answering specific financial and operational metrics. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying it is a by-CCN lookup.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a CCN and need financial/operational metrics for a specific hospital. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, though siblings suggest search tools exist for broader queries.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States returns up to 15 years of data and discloses pricing, but omits behavioral details like error handling, read-only nature, or data freshness. Basic but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence plus pricing note, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information (multi-year, data fields, source). Highly concise.

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?

Tool has one parameter and no output schema; description adequately covers data content, time range, source, and cost. Minor gap: no mention of response format or empty data behavior, but sufficient for a simple retrieval 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?

Only parameter 'ccn' is described in schema as 'Path parameter: CMS Certification Number'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema, and schema_coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 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?

Description clearly states tool retrieves multi-year financial history for one hospital by CCN, listing specific data fields (beds, discharges, revenues, net income) and source (CMS cost reports). This distinguishes it from siblings focused on other aspects like dialysis or home health.

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?

Description implies use for financial data but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source and price, but lacks details on search behavior (exact vs partial match), pagination, sorting, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 17 parameters.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a source and price annotation. Every element adds value, with the core functionality and a sample query front-loaded.

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 its conciseness, the description lacks completeness for a complex tool. It does not explain how filters combine, output format, pagination, or parameter constraints. Combined with missing schema descriptions and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description lists several filter categories (state, city, type, etc.) but does not explain individual parameters like limit, offset, zip_prefix, or fy_end_year. Given 17 parameters, this provides only minimal semantic value.

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 searches US hospitals by multiple criteria (state, city, type, financial metrics), and provides a sample use case ('which hospitals in a market match a profile?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hcris_hospital_byCcn (lookup by ID) and other domain-specific searches.

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 includes a sample question that illustrates intended use (filtering hospitals by financial/operational profile). It also notes the data source and cost, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to similar search tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness. Only the action 'search' hints at idempotency but is not explicit.

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 sentences plus source and pricing note. Front-loaded with purpose and a representative question. No unnecessary words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and typical queries. It lacks detail on return format, error behavior, and precise use of range parameters, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by listing searchable fields (NPI, state, specialty, service volume, beneficiaries, payments). However, it does not explain min/max pairs for ranges, nor mention limit/offset parameters. The added value is moderate.

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 states 'Search Medicare providers by NPI, state, specialty, service volume, beneficiaries, or payments.' It clearly identifies the resource (Medicare providers) and the action (search), and distinguishes from sibling tools like hospital or facility searches by focusing on providers.

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 answers the question 'which providers in a market match this specialty, volume, or beneficiary profile?' which implies usage for market analysis. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context and naming make it clear it's for individual providers rather than facilities.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses response shape variation and pricing ($0.005/call). Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or destructive potential (though read-only inferred). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences plus a note. Concise, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant 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?

Given single param, no output schema, no annotations, description adequately covers response shape differentiation and cost. Could include example of returned fields, but sufficient for agent decision.

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?

One parameter 'code' with schema description. Description adds context: explains that behavior depends on code ambiguity (flat row vs stats_by_type). This goes beyond schema field description.

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?

Clearly states it provides national price statistics for a billing code from hospital price-transparency files. Specific verb ('returns median and spread') and resource ('billing code'). Distinguishes from sibling hpt_rates_search by focusing on statistics rather than search.

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?

Describes when to use: to get fair price for a procedure. Explains two response shapes based on code ambiguity. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling list provides context for alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions source and cost but lacks details on response format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond purpose.

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 plus cost note. Information is front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, no enums, yet description fails to explain parameter relationships, valid values, or response structure. Significant gaps for a search tool with complex filtering.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It lists five of eight parameters (billing code, state, payer, CCN, rate type) but omits limit, offset, billing_code_type. This provides partial clarity but leaves gaps.

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: searching hospital price-transparency negotiated rates by multiple criteria. It also phrases the question it answers, making the purpose immediately understandable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 when to use (to find what payers pay for a procedure) and provides context via source and cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It mentions the source and cost but lacks disclosure about pagination (though limit/offset are in schema), rate limits, data freshness, or whether it is a safe read operation. The description does not describe the return format or any behavioral traits beyond search capabilities.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a price note. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description provides adequate context for the core search intent but misses details on pagination behavior and response structure. An agent would need to infer the return format and may not handle large result sets properly without understanding limit/offset.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It covers three of six parameters (ein, name_search, and compensation range via min/max) but does not explain limit or offset. This adds some value but leaves pagination parameters unexplained, which is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 specific verb 'search' and resource 'nonprofit hospital executive compensation: officers and key employees'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like irs990_org_search by focusing on officers rather than organizations, and includes the data source (IRS Form 990 Schedule J) and a sample question.

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 explains when to use the tool (to find executive compensation by EIN, name, or compensation range) and provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings, though the differentiation from other tools is implicit.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions source (IRS e-filings) and price, but does not disclose limitations (e.g., only health organizations, data freshness, rate limits). Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example. Includes source and price. Efficient, though price could be considered extraneous. Still concise and well-structured.

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?

Adequate for a simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema, but lacks description of output format or scope clarification (e.g., whether 'health organization' is strict). Leaves some gaps.

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?

Single parameter 'ein' with schema description 'Path parameter: IRS Employer Identification Number (EIN)'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minor context ('Path parameter') but not substantial beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves Form 990 filing history for a nonprofit health organization by EIN, with specific example questions (revenues, expenses, trends). Distinguishes from sibling tools like irs990_org_search and irs990_officers_search.

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?

Implies use when you have an EIN and want historical financial data, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use. Lacks exclusions or context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states this is a search tool with a data source and price. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, idempotency, or what the response structure looks like. The disclosure is minimal.

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 composed of three concise sentences. The first lists parameters, the second provides a usage example, and the third adds source and cost information. There is no fluff, and the information is front-loaded adequately.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the meaning of net_income versus revenue, does not mention pagination (offset/limit), and does not describe the structure of returned results. Completeness is lacking, especially with many sibling search tools.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It mentions searchable fields (state, NTEE code, revenue or expense range, name), which maps to some parameters but omits limit, offset, and net_income. This adds partial meaning but is incomplete.

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 it searches nonprofit health organizations by various criteria. It specifies the resource (nonprofit health orgs) and the actions (search). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the reference to IRS Form 990 e-filings provides unique context.

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 an example query ('which nonprofit hospitals/health orgs match this financial profile?') which implies usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (median, mean, percentiles, employment) and source, but does not mention read-only nature or any side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a price tag, front-loading the key purpose and output. No wasted words.

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, the description lists statistics but lacks detail on return format. With 7 optional and undocumented parameters, it could be more complete. Adequate for a simple data fetch but leaves gaps.

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%. The description hints at parameters like occupation_code and area_code by mentioning SOC and area types, but does not explain each parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. Minimal guidance.

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 it provides healthcare wage benchmarks by SOC occupation and area, answering the question of what a role pays in a market. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on healthcare facilities, financials, and other data.

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 wage queries but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusion or context is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions monthly refresh and a price, but lacks details on search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, exact vs. partial matching, pagination via limit/offset, or read-only nature). For a tool with 7 parameters, these omissions are significant.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a note on price. It front-loads the action and purpose, making the core functionality immediately clear. Every part serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and 0% schema coverage for 7 parameters, the description is too brief. It fails to specify how to use multiple search fields together, what the response looks like, or pagination behavior. The monthly refresh note is helpful, but overall completeness is low for a search tool with this complexity.

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 description names key parameters (name, NPI, state, exclusion type) but does not cover all 7 parameters (limit, offset, and the distinction between last_name_search and business_name_search are missing). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but leaves ambiguity, especially for the two name fields.

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 searches the OIG LEIE by specific fields (name, NPI, state, exclusion type) and answers a concrete question: whether a provider is excluded from federal healthcare programs. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'sanctions_screen', which likely performs broader screening. The verb 'search' and resource 'LEIE' 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 implies usage for checking provider exclusion status (Answers: is this provider excluded?), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sanctions_screen' or other search tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the context signals sibling tools offer potential alternatives.

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

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses output format (clear/flagged verdict with counts), lists covered/not applicable, and price. It is transparent about the requirement of a name for some lists.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by crucial details and use cases.

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?

Fully complete for a tool with 2 optional params and no output schema: covers input constraints, output format, and pricing. No gaps.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: explains that either name, NPI, or both can be used, and details the coverage difference (NPI-only misses OFAC SDN and FDA debarment).

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 'Screen' and resource 'provider' against a comprehensive list of exclusion databases. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sanctions_leie_search by covering multiple lists in one call.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: hiring, credentialing, and vendor-onboarding. It provides guidance on NPI-only limitations (covers 4 of 6 lists) and hints at when a name is needed. Lacks explicit exclusion of when not to use.

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