open_payments_by_hospital

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the output is aggregated totals ('Shows total pharma payments'), which clarifies the behavioral scope. This is useful context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, the first states the core action, the second adds use case. No waste, front-loaded with essential 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?

The description explains what the tool returns (payments grouped by hospital), its scope (teaching hospitals), and its usefulness. With no output schema and a single documented parameter, this is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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 schema description covers the single 'limit' parameter at 100% ('Number of hospitals (default 20)'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool name and description convey the grouping context, but no additional parameter semantics are provided 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 the tool gets payments grouped by teaching hospital, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like open_payments_by_physician and open_payments_by_company by focusing on the hospital grouping.

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 context for use ('useful for identifying institutional conflicts of interest') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context without explicit exclusion.

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