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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'bounded contract values' and 'explicit interpretation limits,' which are not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the search criteria and return types into a readable enumeration. No wasted words or 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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers the search scope, accepted identifiers, and caveats like interpretation limits. All six parameters are already fully documented in the schema.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed explanations (date defaults, max_results cap, amount ranges). The description only restates recipient_query's accepted identifiers without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 the tool searches public USAspending prime federal procurement awards, with specific search keys (recipient name, UEI, DUNS) and a list of return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling research tools focused on other data sources like OFAC or SEC.

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 provides clear context on the tool's domain and scope, implying when it should be used, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria. An agent can infer its use for USAspending contract lookups versus sibling tools.

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