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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value beyond them: 'Returns one array, no paging' (shape), 'changes only when new awards land' (update cadence), 'Limits follow the caller's key plan, the same as search_contracts' (rate/auth behavior), plus a prompt-injection warning about untrusted scraped fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, freshness, limits, and a safety note. Every sentence carries information, though 'Read-only' is a mild restatement of the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: one array, no paging, and the field set each archetype includes. Combined with usage routing, freshness, and limits, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the sole 'category' parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description's example ('IT & Software Services') merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'List the winning-business archetypes derived from historical government contract awards,' and enumerates the fields each archetype contains. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning archetypes as the pre-step to score_contract.

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?

Explicitly gives the when and the chained next action: 'Use it to see which firm shapes win in a category, then run score_contract against that shape.' It does not state when NOT to use it versus search_contracts or search_naics, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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