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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is searched and the filter options, without mentioning read-only nature, result formats, rate limits, or operational constraints. This is minimal transparency for a tool that presumably returns structured data.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and filter criteria. Every word adds value with no redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, this description is too terse to be fully actionable. It lacks information about result types, pagination, filter combination rules, or any limitations, leaving an agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by naming supplier, buyer, topic, and minimum value, which map to the schema's supplier, buyer, query, and min_amount parameters. However, it does not clarify parameter formats, constraints, or how 'topic' corresponds to the free-text query field, leaving ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as searching UK government contract awards and lists four filter dimensions (supplier, buyer, topic, minimum value), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other parliamentary data types. The verb 'search' is implied by the title and context, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for filtering contract awards but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are clearly about other data domains, so the use case is evident by implication, but no direct guidance is provided.

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