open_payments_research

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

No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation. The description adds value by clarifying the scope (research vs general) and disclosing output content (funding amounts, sponsors, principal investigators). It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but for a search tool with readOnlyHint, this is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, add a key distinction, and describe output fields. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers purpose, scope, and output content. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance for choosing among other open_payments sibling tools, but the research/general distinction handles most selection cases adequately.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of parameters. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's high coverage.

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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'Open Payments RESEARCH payment data', and further clarifies the scope as 'grants, clinical research funding from pharma to doctors'. It explicitly differentiates from 'general payments', making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many open_payments siblings.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for research payments, separate from general payments, effectively telling the agent when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like open_payments_search or open_payments_by_company, so it lacks the explicit alternative references that would merit a 5.

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