Search US healthcare providers (NPI Registry)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: it runs the Apify Actor tacps126/npi-providers on the caller's Apify account, costs about $0.003 per provider, is capped at $0.5 per call, and cost scales with max_items. It does not describe pagination or what happens when filters combine, so the disclosure is valuable but not complete.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and field list before moving to filters and then cost, and almost every clause carries information. The prose is dense and slightly run-on, packing fields, filters and pricing into one long sentence and a half, but there is little true filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers the non-obvious operational facts an agent needs: account dependency, per-provider pricing and the per-call spend cap. For a 12-parameter, zero-required search tool with full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including examples for states, specialties, organization_name wildcards and the max_items cost note. The description reinforces the filter categories but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (US doctors, dentists, therapists, clinics and hospitals from the official NPI Registry), enumerates the returned fields, and is clearly distinct from nearby siblings such as search_clinical_trials and search_fda_device_clearances. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete selection axes — search by specialty, state, city, ZIP, name or NPI, and optionally restrict to new practices or providers with a phone — which tells the agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case against sibling search tools.

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