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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the auth requirement (BidCatch intel key) and the meaning of the one-bid filter, which are valuable. But it says nothing about result shape, pagination/limits, or sort behavior, and the read-only nature is only implied by 'filter'/'search'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the routing rule, then the prerequisite. No filler; every sentence contributes distinct information.

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, routing, and auth, which is solid for a 6-param search with 83% schema coverage and no output schema. However, it omits anything about result volume, pagination, or what a filtered response looks like, leaving a real gap for an agent planning a query.

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 83% and already documents naics, state, agency, recipient, and one_bid_only, so the description's inline field list largely repeats the schema. It adds no format, matching-mode, or default guidance beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Filter federal contract awards') and enumerates the exact-field dimensions (recipient, awarding agency, NAICS, state), explicitly contrasting with keyword search. An agent can distinguish this from get_award_history without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule ('use this when you know the slice you want') and names the sibling alternative ('use get_award_history for topic/keyword search'). It also surfaces the prerequisite of a BidCatch intel key, which affects whether the call can succeed at all.

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