gov_cms_open_payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost per call, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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 one compact sentence that efficiently communicates the data source, the query scope, the parameter names, and the cost. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter lookup, the description covers the core purpose and cost. However, it does not describe the output shape, and it creates slight ambiguity by stating 'by NPI and year' when year is optional in the schema. Without an output schema, some description of return behavior would improve 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description merely restates the parameter names without adding extra meaning, so it adds no value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (CMS Open Payments data) and the scope (industry payments to a physician by NPI and year). It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the intent is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only lists parameters and cost, so the agent has to infer usage context from the tool name.

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