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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds the useful context that results include analysed sector and ticker exposure, but it does not disclose pagination, result formatting, or any other behavioral details beyond what the annotation already signals.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the core scope and then lists the available filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, all-optional search tool, the description plus the fully-covered input schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke it: the search scope, the key filters, and the nature of the results. It is slightly incomplete on alternative routing and no output schema, but those are secondary here.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the main filter dimensions (bill number, ticker, sector, date, event type) but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 clearly states the tool does full-text search over bills, contract awards, and other government events, with analysed sector and ticker exposure. This gives a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_awards or latest_events among the siblings.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should use this when searching bills, contract awards, or government events by text and filters. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use search_awards, search_opportunities, or latest_events instead, nor any exclusions.

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