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 lists what data is returned but does not explain behaviors such as the time range for 'recent awards', handling of invalid UEIs, or any side effects. It is accurate but not deeply transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the tool's output content, and includes a direct usage directive. It contains no filler or repetition, making every sentence valuable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers both the return content and the user-intent context. It explains what the agent will get (award counts, totals, agencies, etc.) and when to invoke it (competitor, incumbent, market winners), which is complete for its simplicity.

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%. The 'uei' parameter is already fully described in the schema, including format and how to obtain it if only the company name is known. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 clearly defines the tool's purpose: providing federal award history for a contractor, with specific metrics (contract count, total obligated, median win value, agencies, recent awards, set-aside status). This is distinct from sibling tools like agency_profile, which focuses on agencies.

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?

Explicit usage triggers are given: 'Call this when the user asks about a competitor, about the incumbent on a contract, or who has already won in a given market.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit contrast, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives structure.

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