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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the required caller-owned SAM.gov API key, the error behavior when absent, and the 1-year date window cap. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then when to use it, then the auth prerequisite. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; minor overlap between the enumerated notice types and the notice_type enum.

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 9-parameter, optional-only-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, filterable dimensions, and the critical auth requirement. Only real gap is that it does not sketch the return shape despite there being no output schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including enum code mappings and the date-window limit. The description restates filter categories (NAICS, set-aside, notice type, agency, dates) without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (active federal contract opportunities on SAM.gov), then enumerates the notice categories covered. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_awards (awards) and find_agency/find_naics (reference lookups).

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call this when the user wants to find federal bidding opportunities or market intelligence on what agencies are buying.' No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., use search_awards for past awards), which keeps it short of a 5.

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