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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It details the output (identity, beds, discharges, revenues, net income, operating margin across fiscal years), giving a clear picture of what the tool does. However, it does not specify read-only nature, but for a data retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 a price tag. Every word serves a purpose: identifies the record type, lists key output fields, and communicates cost. No fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It mentions 'across fiscal years' implying time series, but lacks details on number of years or response format. Nonetheless, it is complete enough for an agent to decide.

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% for the single parameter 'ccn', which is described. The tool description adds context that the CCN identifies a hospital cost-report record, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's 'CMS Certification Number'. 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?

The description clearly states it returns a hospital cost-report record identified by CCN, listing specific metrics (beds, discharges, revenues, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the CCN identifier, though it could be more explicit among similar hospital tools like hcris_hospital_financials.

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 CCN is known, but no explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned. Sibling tools like hcris_hospital_search exist for name-based lookup, but the description does not guide selection.

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