open_payments_by_specialty

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it provides national totals and averages rather than individual records, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose return format or how the limit parameter affects results.

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, fully front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a concrete example of the output's value. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of purpose and output substance (totals, averages, top specialties). It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of returned data, but for the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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% and the only parameter (limit) already has a clear description in the schema: 'Number of specialties (default 30)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 a specific action: 'Get national payment totals and averages by medical specialty.' It names the resource (Open Payments data by specialty) and includes examples of specialties, distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_payments_by_physician or open_payments_by_company.

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 use when the user needs national-level specialty aggregates, especially ranking of specialties by pharma payments. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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