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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds 'Keyless and unlimited,' which addresses authentication and rate limits, providing valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for filters, one for use cases. It front-loads the core action and every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, filters, and use cases. It hints at return fields ('who won what, from which agency, for how much') but does not detail result structure or pagination. Still, it is sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 coverage is 60%, so the description partially compensates for the missing param descriptions. It maps filters like 'NAICS, PSC, award amount' to the schema fields, giving meaning to otherwise undocumented params such as naics_codes, psc_codes, and min/max_amount.

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 searches actual federal contract awards on USAspending.gov, listing specific filters. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'actual' awards, contrasting with search_opportunities and get_award.

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 provides use cases: competitive intelligence, incumbent research, and agency spending patterns. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the contexts are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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