open_payments_by_physician

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

ReadOnlyHint is already provided in annotations, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Pre-aggregated totals' and 'across all years,' which informs the agent that data is pre-summarized rather than raw records. No contradiction with annotations.

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 deliver purpose, scope, and data nature without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 pre-aggregated list tool with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit return-field details (e.g., doctor name, NPI, total amount), but the phrase 'how much each doctor received from pharma overall' strongly implies a payment total, which may be sufficient given the simplicity.

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 100% of the single parameter (limit: 'Number of physicians (default 20)'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get payments grouped by individual physician across all years.' It clearly states the aggregation dimension (by physician) and scope (all years), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like by_company, by_hospital, or by_specialty.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it returns per-physician total payments, implying it is appropriate when an agent needs doctor-level aggregated data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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