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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (results with an id and citable URL) and the recommended follow-up action, which are key behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the nature of a search tool and the focus on returning results makes the absence less critical. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the bare fact of searching.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage guidance and output behavior. Every sentence contributes unique value without redundancy or fluff.

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 search tool with two simple parameters, an output schema, and a clear workflow, the description is fully complete. It explains what to search, when to use it, what to expect in results, and how to proceed. No significant gaps remain that would hinder agent selection or invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' clearly explained including examples and constraints. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces the general scope of what can be searched. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but does not elevate beyond it.

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 ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource (AwardCast's US federal contracting record), specifying categories (buying agencies, contractors, solicitations). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by presenting itself as the first call for procurement questions, and the note about passing IDs to the fetch tool helps differentiate workflow from 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 explicit guidance on when to use: 'Call this first for any question about who buys, who sells, or what is open in US federal procurement.' It also provides a clear alternative pathway by instructing to pass the returned id to the fetch tool for full details, indicating how this tool relates to others.

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