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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool is an 'observational marker' of a 'reported step-up', discloses the cost ($0.1/call), and notes pagination (keyset cursor). No destructive or hidden behaviors are omitted, though response format is not detailed.

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 a single paragraph of about 5 sentences, efficiently front-loading the key purpose. Almost every sentence contributes value (data source, thresholds, question, filters, pagination, price). A slight condensing could improve, but it's already 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input semantics and data source thoroughly. It lacks explanation of the output structure or examples, but for a non-critical tool this is acceptable.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the conceptual thresholds ($1M, 2x prior year), defines 'min_amount' as movable-equipment dollars, and clarifies 'cursor' as keyset pagination. Schema coverage is 80%, but the description contextualizes the parameters effectively.

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 'Hospital capital-expenditure jump signals' and answers 'which hospitals just bought equipment?', specifying the data source (CMS cost reports) and threshold ($1M and 2x prior year). This distinguishes it from all siblings, which focus on other healthcare facilities or data 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 lists filtering options (state, min_amount, since) and pagination, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are sufficiently different to imply appropriate usage.

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