open_payments_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds context about scale (15M+ records per year) and cross-referencing options, which is useful but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, default limit, or result format beyond the schema.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, scale, and cross-referencing suggestions. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 search tool with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description covers the essential context—what data is returned and potential integrations. However, it lacks details on output format or limit behavior, which slightly reduces completeness.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 searches CMS Open Payments data, specifying the source (Sunshine Act), the parties involved (pharma/device companies to doctors), and the data elements (dollar amounts, payment type, doctor details). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_payments_by_company or open_payments_by_physician by emphasizing a general search capability.

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 general search of payment records and suggests cross-referencing with other datasets, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. No when-not-to or exclusion criteria are provided.

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