open_payments_top

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying that results are sorted by amount descending and that it returns the highest payments, which informs call expectations.

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 tight sentences: first states the core behavior, second gives concrete use cases, third differentiates from the sibling. No filler or repeated schema 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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers main intent and use case, and clearly distinguishes from its closest sibling. It does not explicitly mention limit defaults or response shape, but the schema handles defaults and the tool's simple top-N nature makes this a minor gap.

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%, with every parameter already documented (year, limit, state, doctor, company, specialty). The description mentions 'state or specialty' and 'pharma payments' but adds no new parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the HIGHEST pharma payments to doctors — sorted by amount descending.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the 'basic search' sibling by advertising the sorting feature, so an agent knows exactly what this tool uniquely does.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: 'find the biggest consulting fees, royalties, and speaking fees in a state or specialty.' Explicitly contrasts with the basic search that returns default order. Missing only exclusions for other siblings like open_payments_by_company, but the stated context is sufficient for typical selection.

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