open_payments_by_hospital

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional context about aggregating total pharma payments by teaching hospital is useful but not required. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 first states the operation and output, the second adds the aggregated value and use case. The description earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the output and purpose, while annotations cover safety semantics. Minor details such as result sorting or exact response fields are absent but not critical for this simple aggregate tool.

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 only parameter, limit, is already fully described in the schema as 'Number of hospitals (default 20)', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payments grouped by teaching hospital'), clearly defining what the tool returns. The grouping by teaching hospital distinguishes it from sibling open_payments tools such as open_payments_by_physician or open_payments_by_company.

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 provides a use case ('useful for identifying institutional conflicts of interest') that implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus the many other open_payments breakdown tools.

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