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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the nature of results (current/historical evidence, amendments, conflicts, provenance, missing-evidence boundaries) and explicit limitations (no private relationships). While it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, the description does provide meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple read-only hint.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise summary of returns and explicit non-goals. Every sentence earns its place, and the non-goals sentence adds differentiation without redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's scope and outputs. It lists the types of evidence returned and what is excluded, which gives sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. It could be more detailed about how filters combine or what the response structure looks like, but it covers the essential aspects.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Exact source-scoped organization id from resolve_entities'). The description adds a high-level grouping of filter dimensions but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('official Saskatchewan CanadaBuys procurement observations') with three explicit filter dimensions (buyer, notice, UNSPSC category). It also differentiates from siblings by listing what it does not do (rank tenders, infer supplier fit, expose private relationships), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (inspecting procurement observations with specific filters) and explicitly states exclusions ('does not rank tenders, infer supplier fit, or expose private relationships'). However, it does not name alternative tools for those excluded purposes, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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