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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: 'Source: USASpending.gov + SAM.gov. 4-hour cache.' It also discloses return content (award amounts, recipient vendors, NAICS codes, award dates). 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section (parameters, returns, alternatives, source, example) contributes useful information, though the inline parameter list slightly duplicates the input schema.

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 search tool with an output schema already present, the description is complete: it covers parameters, return fields, data source, cache behavior, when to choose alternatives, and provides a concrete example. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description repeats the same parameter explanations with examples, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search government contract awards by keyword, agency, and date range.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and later distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it handles past awards, not active solicitations.

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?

Explicit usage routing is provided: 'Use govcon_fetch_vendor_contract_history for all contracts by a specific vendor' and 'Use govcon_fetch_open_solicitations for active bids, not past awards.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the relevant alternatives.

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