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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral boundaries: it cannot start Apify runs, open checkout, contact applicants, or purchase anything. It also describes the output as 'validated' and includes 'limitations,' adding meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary exclusions. No words are wasted, and it remains readable despite the complex subject matter.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it states what data is returned (10-row preview, source dates, national counts, limitations) and clarifies the optional handoff. It covers all needed invocation context.

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 sole parameter 'states' is already fully documented in the input schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: a current validated 10-row public preview of behavioral-health NPIs in CMS pending first-time Medicare enrollment files. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on revalidation due dates and purchase offers.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'cannot start an Apify run, open checkout, contact applicants, or purchase anything.' This gives clear exclusions, but it does not name alternative tools for those actions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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