cms_query

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds that the tool can filter by any field and targets arbitrary dataset identifiers, but it does not describe pagination behavior, return variability, or dataset-specific caveats. Helpful but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the pointer to cms_search is placed in the second sentence. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 general-purpose dynamic query tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential starting point but could better explain the full workflow, such as discovering the dataset's fields and acceptable filter values before querying. The annotation and schema cover safety and parameter shape, but the dynamic dataset nature leaves a meaningful gap.

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 even without extra commentary. The description does reinforce that dataset_id functions as an identifier and that filtering is arbitrary, but it adds little beyond the already-detailed parameter descriptions.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'query against any CMS provider dataset by dataset identifier.' It also directs the agent to cms_search for IDs, distinguishing this general tool from dedicated siblings like cms_hospitals and cms_nursing_homes without needing to open their schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use cms_search to find available datasets and their IDs, which is clear contextual routing. It does not spell out when-not-to-use the tool versus the specialized cms_hospitals/cms_nursing_homes tools, but the 'general-purpose' framing makes the intended niche reasonably clear.

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