health.open-payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries a database of ~10M records per year, supports lookup by multiple fields, and returns specific data (recipient, payer, payment, product). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but is still fairly 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?

The description is two sentences: first sets context (source, volume), second explains lookup and return data. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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, the description adequately covers the return fields. It mentions volume (~10M records) implying pagination needs but does not explicitly explain offset/limit. Overall sufficient 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by grouping lookup parameters (NPI, name, payer, state) and explaining return fields. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by providing context on how to use parameters, though it doesn't detail every parameter (e.g., limit, offset).

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 purpose: querying CMS Open Payments data (Sunshine Act payments) from pharma/device manufacturers to US physicians or teaching hospitals. It specifies the data volume, lookup parameters (NPI, name, payer, state), and return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling health tools like health.hospital-lookup or health.medicare-provider.

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 implicitly suggests usage for payment data lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to consider.

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