Search US healthcare providers (NPI registry)

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool runs a paid Apify actor on the user's account, requires APIFY_TOKEN, and explains billing ($0.002 per record). This covers safety and cost implications well.

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 somewhat long but structured with key info upfront (what it is, what it returns, filters). Every sentence adds value: purpose, returned data, filters, use cases, and billing details. 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it lists return fields, explains all filter parameters, and covers cost. It lacks only explicit mention of pagination or error handling, but overall it is quite 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% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds value by explaining wildcard usage (e.g., '331*', 'mayo*') and billing implications of maxResults. This enhances the agent's understanding 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 it searches the official CMS NPPES NPI Registry for US healthcare providers and organizations, listing returned fields and filter criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (building permits, federal contracts) by its specific domain.

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 explicit use cases: 'healthcare sales lists, provider verification, and directory enrichment.' It does not specify when not to use this tool, but the clear purpose and unrelated siblings make this adequate.

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