open_payments_by_company

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

The tool has readOnlyHint=true in annotations, so the read-only nature is already clear. The description adds minor context (grouping by company, showing totals and count) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides key 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what data is returned (grouped by company, total amounts and count), and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety concerns.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', which is described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own description, so a baseline score 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 the tool retrieves payment summary data grouped by company, with total amounts and payment counts. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Get payment summary data') and distinguishes from sibling tools like open_payments_by_physician or open_payments_by_hospital.

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 usage for aggregated data across years, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or suggestions for other tools for more granular queries.

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