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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned fields are untrusted scraped data, plus an enumeration of what each archetype record contains (a necessary addition since there is no output schema). It omits freshness/caching or list-size behavior, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the core listing behavior first, then the untrusted-data caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the safety note is placed where it will be read before invocation.

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 correctly takes on the burden of summarizing the returned fields (NAICS, award range, agency types, states, sample winners), and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it says nothing about result volume or whether the list is static versus recomputed.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines the category filter. The description's example ('IT & Software Services') echoes the schema's example and adds no new semantics such as matching rules or behavior when category is omitted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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') and immediately scopes it as derived from historical government contract awards, with concrete examples. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like search_contracts, search_naics, and get_states, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 a discovery/planning use case by describing what the archetypes contain (NAICS, award range, agency types, states, sample winners), but it never states when to pick this tool over search_naics or search_contracts, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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