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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the incremental behavior and cursor usage but omits details like rate limits, pagination beyond limit, cursor expiration, or whether the operation is read-only. Transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains cursor usage, then lists filters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether response includes a new cursor for iteration) and does not cover pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. Given the tool's role as a delta feed, this missing context reduces completeness.

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 63%, and the description adds value by grouping filters (NAICS, agency, etc.) and clarifying the cursor's role ('bookmark'). It explains the cursor usage pattern beyond the schema, though it does not mention the limit parameter explicitly.

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 returns 'federal contract awards that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token,' identifying the specific verb ('return'), resource ('federal contract awards'), and unique incremental nature. This explicitly differentiates it from siblings like search_awards (full search) or competitor_watch (different focus).

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 explains the core usage ('Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only changes since then') and lists filter options, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when not to use it, missing full exclusion guidance.

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