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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It prominently reveals the billing side effect (charges partner balance at price_per_record_cents × records_delivered), offers dry_run for a free preview, and mentions structured shortfall info on insufficient balance. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it omits pagination, sort, or auth details.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct value: core action, cost behavior, dry-run option, and failure/error handling. No filler or redundancy, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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?

For a paid query tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description covers essential usage, cost, and agent-relevant error handling. It leaves a real gap around active_only and the success response shape, but overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core state/trade/geo query dimensions, the dry_run parameter, and implicitly limit via records_delivered. It leaves active_only unmentioned and does not disambiguate geo_type values (zip vs city), but it still adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('enriched contractor records'), and query dimensions ('state × trade × geo'). The wording clearly distinguishes it from sibling count_contractors and list tools: this returns records, not counts or metadata.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: for a state/trade/geo record query, with cost implications and a dry-run option. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use count_contractors instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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