Operator quality/staffing/occupancy metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it is deterministic, the pooled block is server-computed to avoid client-side aggregation, and unsupported operators are reported rather than silently omitted. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies non-obvious behaviors.

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 dense but well-formed: it leads with the core purpose, then lists metrics, then addresses the pooling caveat and unsupported-operator behavior. It is a single paragraph but stays on-topic with no filler; every sentence carries essential information.

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 an output schema, the return format does not need to be explained. The description covers the metrics, the input constraints, pooling behavior, and error handling. It is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not mention any prerequisites or typical usage against siblings.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description and example for 'operators'. The description adds meaning by specifying free-text names (1-10), the pooling behavior for multiple operators, and the error-handling for unsupported operators. This is valuable beyond the schema's basic array definition.

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 computes deterministic CMS metrics for operators and enumerates the specific metrics (star rating distribution, staffing HPRD benchmark, occupancy, and constant-panel trends). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling metrics tools like portfolio_overview or operator_concentration, but the described scope is specific enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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 gives operational guidance for the multi-operator case (the server-computed pooled block and a caution not to sum per-operator numbers) and for unsupported operators (report with a reason, never drop). However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over its siblings, such as when to use portfolio_overview or national_benchmarks instead. The guidance is present but the alternative-selection context is missing.

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