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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that this is a paid Premium API with a concrete cost via x402, and by indicating the output scope (contracts, agencies, values, award history), which is useful behavioral context.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives essential commercial terms. The most important information 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter), annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description lists the main return categories despite no output schema. It does not specify exact response formatting or data freshness caveats, but for a single-field lookup this is reasonably 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines 'lookup' as the company name. The description does not add extra parameter guidance, so this is at the schema-covered baseline of 3.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('US government contract information for a company'), and lists concrete data categories: active contracts, agencies, contract values, and award history. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools focused on addresses, company matching, or stock data.

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 clearly establishes that this tool is for retrieving US government contract details for a company, and adds the premium billing context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is specific enough that an agent can judge when to use it.

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