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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: a data-quality caveat ('NAICS coverage varies by state; some contracts lack NAICS codes') and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned fields are untrusted scraped data to be treated as data, never instructions. No rate-limit or pagination behavior is described, 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?

Three tight sentences — purpose, filter inventory, return fields, then the data-trust caveat. Every clause carries information, nothing is repeated, and the core purpose 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, agency, state, due date, set-asides, value). Combined with 92% schema coverage on 12 optional parameters and the NAICS caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this tool 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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description only adds the NAICS 2-6 digit range and the USD/ISO-date framing, most of which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Search live US state & local government contracts.' Listing the available filters and the returned fields makes the tool's domain unmistakable and distinguishes it from get_contract (single record) and search_naics (code lookup).

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 the filter list but never stated: there is no 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_contract or search_naics, and no exclusions. The agent can infer the tool is a broad discovery search, but nothing routes it explicitly among the siblings.

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