open_payments_by_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds useful behavioral context like 'all years combined' and what fields are shown. However, it does not describe pagination, default behavior, or any potential edge cases, which would be valuable for a complete picture.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and grouping, followed by a clear summary of output. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output well. It lacks details about pagination or limit defaults, but the schema fills that gap. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to decide 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is well-described in the schema. The description itself does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema already handles it completely, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns payment summary data grouped by pharmaceutical/device company, with specific details about output ('total amounts and number of payments'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like open_payments_by_physician, open_payments_by_hospital, and open_payments_by_specialty by explicitly focusing on companies.

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 implies when to use the tool (when company-level aggregated data is needed, all years combined) but does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. It provides context but lacks clear guidance relative to the many sibling Open Payments tools.

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