HHS-OIG LEIE Exclusion Screening

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

The description discloses that it starts an Apify Actor using the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume usage, waits up to 60 seconds, and caps results at 1,000 rows without changing the source list. It also reveals operational details like NPI lookups and SAM.gov queries. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and provides substantial behavioral context.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, constraints, and operational limits are front-loaded, with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential operational expectations (timeout, usage, row limits, data immutability) and clarifies its limitations (not identity adjudication, not licensing). It does not explicitly explain the screen vs filter modes, but the schema covers that thoroughly, so the description is otherwise complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only marginal parameter context (mentions name, NPI, state, specialty as search keys) but does not elaborate on modes, maxRecords, or enrichment fields beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema bears the load.

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 finds review candidates in the HHS-OIG LEIE by name, NPI, state, specialty, or exclusion type. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target unrelated registries (permits, rentals, violations, licensing), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says not to use for identity adjudication or facility licensing, providing clear boundaries. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the siblings are unrelated, and the description gives a clear 'when to use' context (screening/filtering).

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