open_payments_by_specialty

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 the scope 'national' and the aggregation level, which is useful but not deep behavioral disclosure (e.g., no mention of pagination, response format, or any caveats). The added value over annotations is moderate.

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, no wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying example. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It conveys the output concept ('totals and averages') but does not detail the exact fields or data structure. For a list-type tool, this is acceptable, but a bit more detail on the response format would make it fully complete.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'limit' with description 'Number of specialties (default 30)' and constraints. The description does not add any extra meaning about how the limit affects results (e.g., sorting or truncation). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the exact action: 'Get national payment totals and averages by medical specialty.' It provides specific examples (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, psychiatrists) that make the purpose vivid and distinct from sibling tools like open_payments_by_company or open_payments_by_physician. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'payment totals and averages by medical specialty' is 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?

The description implies usage: if you need specialty-level payment aggregates, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like open_payments_top or open_payments_by_company, nor does it say when not to use it. An agent would infer the use case but without explicit routing guidance.

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