cms_query

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it is general-purpose and supports filtering by any field, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination semantics, error handling for invalid dataset_id or filter_field, or that results are limited/offset via schema parameters. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 three short sentences, all delivering essential information: what it does, how to find dataset IDs, and that filtering is supported. No fluff, no repetition of schema content, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 generic query tool with a read-only annotation, 100% parameter coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow: query by dataset_id, use cms_search for IDs, and filter by any field. It could be more complete by noting pagination parameters (limit/offset) or dedicated alternatives for common datasets, but it is sufficient for correct high-level usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds the claim 'Supports filtering by any field,' which relates to filter_field and filter_value but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'General-purpose query against any CMS provider dataset by dataset identifier.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing its generic nature and explicitly referencing cms_search for dataset discovery. The scope is precise: any CMS dataset, with filtering by any field.

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 a clear usage context: use cms_search to find dataset IDs before querying. It implies this is the tool to use for arbitrary CMS datasets, but it does not explicitly exclude the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., cms_nursing_homes, cms_hospitals) that may be more appropriate for specific datasets. This is a minor gap in exclusion guidance.

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