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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description focuses on genuinely additive facts: data provenance (Department of War daily announcements plus USAspending), sort order, the derived per-row metrics (% of winner's market cap and post-announcement stock move), and a 1-credit cost with a 25 calls/day free-tier ceiling. It does not discuss pagination or how stale the newest announcement can be, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with zero filler: what the data is and its scope first, then the value-add fields, then the cost. All the useful information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the two derived fields each award carries, so an agent knows what comes back. Cost and daily quota are disclosed. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and the recency of the announcements feed relative to the days window.

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 all five parameters (days, limit, agency, ticker, min_amount) are already fully documented and the description adds no further filtering semantics or interaction notes. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 resource and scope: recent U.S. federal contract awards won by publicly traded companies, newest first, with two named data sources. An agent can immediately tell this returns award records. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like contract_shocks or contract_recipients, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scoping language (recent, publicly traded winners, 1-60 day window via the schema) and the credit cost gives a budget signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointers to alternatives for related questions.

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