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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavioral content: outputs are cited, notice requirements are retained, and it explicitly refuses to infer incumbent or eligibility. That last point is a real capability boundary an agent would otherwise assume. It does not mention latency or depth limits, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the positive capability statement front-loaded and the exclusion clause second. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. Combined with the description's scope and boundary statements, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and generation, including the 'retained generation UUID from search_opportunities' provenance) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Build') and concrete artifact ('cited research brief') and enumerates its contents: retained notice requirements, exact award-number candidates, same-industry comparisons. It also bounds itself negatively ('Does not infer an incumbent or eligibility'), which helps distinguish it from inference-style siblings like explain_match, though no sibling is named directly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the deep-research call to make after search_opportunities, and the negative clause warns of what it will not answer. There is no explicit 'use this instead of detail/document' routing or prerequisite statement, so selection still requires inference.

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