open_payments_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only search. It adds that results show funding amounts, sponsors, and principal investigators, but does not disclose pagination, error handling, or response structure. Adds some context but not extensive.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, differentiation, and output summary. Extremely concise with no filler, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence 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 search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and differentiation but omits details like pagination (limit param), year auto-discovery behavior, and output format. Adequate but could provide more operational context.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's baseline is 3. It does not add parameter-specific clarifications; the output field mention in description is helpful but not parameter-related. No additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Open Payments RESEARCH payment data, specifically grants and clinical research funding. It distinguishes from general payments, making the tool's purpose precise and differentiated from siblings like open_payments_search.

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?

Implies usage for research-specific payments by stating 'Separate from general payments.' This provides clear context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. Still, it effectively guides selection among Open Payments siblings.

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