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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the data provenance (prime-reported subcontract records from USAspending/FSRS) and warns that these are reported relationships rather than inferred ones — a meaningful reliability caveat. The auth requirement is stated. It omits result volume, pagination, and behavior when no relationship is found, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the use cases and the auth note. Every sentence contributes: definition, provenance caveat, when-to-use, prerequisite.

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?

Covers purpose, directionality, data source, and access requirement for a three-parameter lookup with no output schema. The notable gap is that all three parameters are optional but the description never says at least one identifier (uei or company) is needed, nor does it sketch the return shape now that no output schema exists to do so.

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%, and the schema already explains uei as the strongest match key and role as prime/sub/both. The description's phrasing about primes and subs reinforces the role enum but adds no matching or resolution detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('Find who a company teams with on federal contracts') and immediately scopes it to both directions of the prime/subcontractor relationship. That scope distinction separates it cleanly from siblings like get_award_history or search_awards, which concern awards rather than reported teaming relationships.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering scenarios: mapping an incumbent's bench before a recompete, and finding primes a subcontractor already works with. It also states the prerequisite ('Requires a BidCatch intel key'). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when you want award-level or forecast-level data, so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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