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

With only readOnlyHint in annotations, the description does the heavy lifting. It discloses the data source, $10M+ threshold, pagination behavior (up to 50 per call), total_matching, and sort options. This goes well beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 dense, purposeful sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use the sibling instead. No filler, and the core scope 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: filters, source, threshold, pagination, sorting, and sibling routing. A slightly more explicit statement of the returned record fields would make it fully complete, but it is already sufficient for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds useful context like the $10M+ floor and pagination style, but it doesn't explain individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('federal contract awards') and scope constraints (USAspending, $10M+). It also distinguishes itself from award_totals by naming it, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says to use award_totals for 'who won the most' questions, providing a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. This gives the agent actionable routing guidance rather than leaving it to infer when to use which tool.

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