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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the 5-factor matching method, the 0-100 return range, and a security warning that returned fields are untrusted scraped data and must not be treated as instructions.

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 sentences are front-loaded with purpose, then method and return value, then a compact security note. No sentence is wasted, and the critical prompt-injection warning is included without bloat.

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 read-only scoring tool with a rich nested input schema and no output schema, the description gives the essential return value (0-100 score) and a notable security caveat about returned fields. It does not describe error behavior or auth requirements, but the annotations and schema cover most operational needs.

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 the schema already documents the contract_id and nested profile fields thoroughly. The description references matching factors that map to profile data, but adds no syntax, format, or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('a single contract's fit against a contractor profile'), and names the five matching factors. It clearly identifies the operation but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as win_likelihood or search_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?

Usage is implied by 'Score a single contract's fit against a contractor profile,' which tells an agent the context for scoring one contract. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the siblings.

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