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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces these with 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds further details: fuzzy matching, cache duration, verified source. No contradictions.

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?

The description is comprehensive but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and groups information logically (purpose, safety, parameters, usage, source, cache, fallback). A slightly tighter structure could remove redundancy, but it remains effective.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lists key return fields. It covers safety, parameters, usage, alternatives, source, cache, and even error handling via report_feedback. For a two-parameter tool with rich annotations, this is fully complete.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by noting 'Fuzzy match used' for vendor_name, which goes beyond the schema. With high baseline, the addition earns a score above 3.

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 states the tool fetches 'complete federal contract award history for a specific vendor' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'govcon_search_contract_awards' by specifying when to use each, ensuring clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('when researching a specific company's government contracting history') and when not to use ('use govcon_search_contract_awards instead when exploring a topic area without a specific vendor'). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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