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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the cost model: 1 credit per call and a 25 calls/day free-tier cap, which an agent can't get from structured fields. It does not describe the shape of returned rows or how missing/small market caps are handled, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: the definition and formula come first, the intuition second, and the cost note last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 four-optional-parameter filter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers purpose, threshold semantics, and call cost. The only omission is what a result row contains, which matters only slightly given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 days, limit, min_pct and exclude_ceilings are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of min_pct with the worked ratio example but adds nothing about days, limit, or what 'ceilings' means for exclude_ceilings.

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 concept: federal awards filtered by award value ÷ market cap ≥ min_pct. The ratio formula and the concrete contrast ($500M vs a $200B prime vs a $5B company) make it unmistakable how this differs from a generic contract-listing tool like federal_contracts.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use — a 'shock' is when an award is large relative to the winner's size — and explains why size-relative filtering matters. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative (e.g. plain contract search) or when not to use it, so it's strong context but not full routing guidance.

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