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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the score is computed on request from the indexed contract so stale postings yield stale scores, rate limits follow the caller's key plan as with search_contracts, and returned fields are untrusted scraped data. None of that is derivable from the structured 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-loads the core question and scope in the first two sentences, then layers input/output, limitations, and the injection warning. Every sentence carries information, though the run of short declaratives (limits, read-only, NOTE) is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract itself ('one object, a 0-100 fit score with per-factor breakdown, no paging'), plus staleness, quota, and untrusted-data caveats. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by specifying the minimum viable profile ('at least naics_codes and service_areas') and that filling more fields sharpens the score. Minor friction: the schema marks service_areas and skills as required, while the description frames naics_codes and service_areas as the floor, which could briefly confuse an agent.

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+resource ('should we bid on this contract?') and narrows scope explicitly to FIT across five named weighted factors (NAICS, budget, location, keywords/skills, timeline). It also names the sibling it is not (win_likelihood) and states what it measures vs. what it doesn't, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('does NOT estimate whether you would win') and routes to the correct alternative ('Call win_likelihood for the odds'). It also adds a usage prerequisite ('Pass at least naics_codes and service_areas') and an input-quality heuristic ('the more of the profile you fill, the sharper the score').

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