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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (score, grade, reasons, matched archetype) and, critically, warns that returned fields are untrusted scraped data that must not be treated as instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection safeguard for an open-world scraping tool.

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, return contents, then the untrusted-data caveat. Front-loaded, zero filler, and the most important safety note is retained 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (score, grade, reasons, matched archetype) and disclosing the scoring basis. The only notable gap is the lack of any distinction from the 'score_contract' sibling, but for a two-parameter read-only estimator it is otherwise complete.

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 contract_id UUID and the nested profile fields are already documented inline. The description mentions 'contractor profile' and 'contract's category' but adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Estimate the likelihood (0-100) that a contractor profile wins a specific contract') and names the mechanism (historical award archetype in the contract's category). Clear on what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'score_contract', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The presence of a similarly-named sibling 'score_contract' makes this omission material — the agent gets no signal about which scoring tool to pick.

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