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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, read-only status, pagination, or any limitations. The description is not misleading, but it lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its output coverage.

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 two sentences: the first lists the tool's outputs and the second states when to use it. Every sentence is useful, there is no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lists the main data points but does not specify return format or any caveats, though that is not a major gap for this straightforward profile tool.

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% because the only parameter 'agency' has a description indicating both name and slug forms work. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 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 defines the tool as a 'buying profile of a US federal agency' and enumerates the specific data points it provides (contracts awarded, obligations, competition share, typical price per NAICS, largest contractors, expiring contracts). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like contractor_profile.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this when the user asks how an agency buys, what it pays, or who already sells to it.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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