open_payments_search

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so the description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns exact dollar amounts, payment type, doctor name/specialty, and involved drugs/devices. It also gives a sense of data scale (15M+ records per year). This goes beyond the annotation but does not cover rate limits, pagination, or result ordering, keeping it below a 5.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides scale, the third lists output fields and cross-reference ideas. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description helps by listing what the results show, which is important for an agent. It also mentions data scale and cross-referencing opportunities, enriching context. However, it omits details like default year behavior (though in schema), pagination, or how to combine filters, making it not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already includes (e.g., examples of partial matches in the schema). It mentions doctor name/specialty and drugs/devices, but these are already implied by the schema parameters.

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 searches CMS Open Payments data and describes its content (payments to doctors, details). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling open_payments tools like open_payments_by_physician or open_payments_top, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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 context about the data (15M+ records) and suggests cross-referencing with FDA, lobbying, and clinical trials, which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide exclusions or prerequisites, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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