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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the data source (Form 990 Schedule J) and the cost per call, but does not disclose behavioral aspects like pagination (though limit/offset are in schema), ordering, or what happens on no results. As a search tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise with two sentences plus a pricing note. It is front-loaded with the purpose, efficient, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input sources, and search criteria. It is mostly complete for a simple search tool but omits details about return structure and error behavior, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 compensate. It describes search by EIN, name, and compensation range, covering ein, name_search, total_compensation_min/max. However, it does not explain limit and offset (pagination parameters), leaving their meaning implicit. The description adds value for most parameters 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 for nonprofit hospital executive compensation, specifically officers and key employees. It specifies searchable dimensions (EIN, name, compensation range) and answers the core question of who the executives are and what they earn. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like irs990_org_search which searches organizations.

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 by the description (use when you need executive compensation data), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced for comparison.

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