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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data coverage window (since October 2018) and the multi-match disambiguation behavior, which the agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of describing pagination or result caps.

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 and its scope, followed by input guidance and the ambiguity case. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (totals, dollars obligated, active contracts, locations, recent contracts). Both parameters are covered and the disambiguation case is handled, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it specifies the UEI is 12 characters and explains that a partial name can return a list of candidate matches, which clarifies the semantics of name_or_uei beyond the schema text.

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 (Shows), a precise resource (a company's VA HVAC and plumbing contracts), a temporal scope (since October 2018), and enumerates the returned aggregates. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as location_contracts or lookup_contract.

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?

Tells the agent how to invoke it (by company name or 12-character UEI) and what happens on ambiguous names. It gives clear usage context but never states when to prefer it over siblings like location_contracts or typical_prices, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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