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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), yet the description adds substantial non-redundant context: the score is 'Computed on request from the indexed award history, so it changes when new awards land,' rate limits mirror search_contracts, and returned fields are 'untrusted scraped data.' The untrusted-data warning is operationally important and appears nowhere in 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?

Well front-loaded and dense: purpose, method, input, output, sequencing, limits, and a safety note, with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy remains, e.g. the standalone 'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint and the search_contracts limits reference is somewhat indirect, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return shape ('one object, a 0-100 win probability, a grade, reasons, and the matched archetype'), covers volatility of results, sequencing relative to score_contract, and the nested profile's role. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: profile is characterized as 'agency history and past awards sharpen it,' telling the agent which profile fields actually move the score, plus 'no paging' on the response. It does not detail the individual profile subfields beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Opens with a direct, specific framing: 'what are our odds of winning this contract?' and immediately scopes it as 'Estimates PROBABILITY, not fit.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling score_contract, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either 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 ordering rule with the alternative named: 'Use it after score_contract: fit first, then odds.' It also states the constraint that limits follow the caller's key plan, the same as search_contracts, which sets expectations about capacity before invocation.

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