open_payments_by_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is aggregated across all years, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or whether the limit parameter caps results at 50.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the aggregation detail is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what fields the response contains beyond 'total amounts and number of payments', nor does it clarify whether the limit parameter is required or how results are ordered. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single limit parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline 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 returns payment summary data grouped by company, with total amounts and payment counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_payments_by_physician and open_payments_by_hospital by specifying the grouping dimension (company) and the aggregation level (all years combined).

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 company-level payment summaries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over open_payments_search, open_payments_summary, or open_payments_top. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, though the grouping by company is clear enough to infer the use case.

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