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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the free-key tier only reaches the last 14 days, which directly affects result completeness — plus a display convention. It does not mention pagination or result volume, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the entity and source, then the sort options, then the display rule and the access constraint. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 an output schema and full annotations already present, the description only needs to add tier limits and conventions, which it does. What is missing is sibling differentiation against find_contracts, which matters for an 8-param discovery tool in a crowded sibling set.

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 100% and each of the 8 parameters is documented in-schema, so the description only echoes the sort choice ('newest first or largest first'). No additional parameter meaning (e.g. how query matches, how NAICS prefixes behave) is added beyond what the schema states, meriting the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with concrete content: 'US federal contract awards from USAspending: which company won which federal contract, for how much and from which agency.' An agent can tell this is a federal-award search, but the sibling find_contracts is not mentioned, leaving ambiguity about which of the two contract-oriented tools to pick.

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?

Implies usage via 'newest first or largest first' and gives a presentation instruction ('Link the record's url when you show it'), but never says when to choose this over find_contracts or what queries it is unsuited for. Guidance is present but incidental rather than a deliberate when/when-not statement.

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