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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: results are sorted closest-deadline-first and each item carries a daysLeft field. It stops short of stating limits/pagination or an empty-window behavior, so not a 5.

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, zero filler: the mechanism and sort order lead, the sibling differentiation follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return shape (urgency-sorted with daysLeft) and the temporal scoping. It is essentially complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as what an empty result or a very large N yields.

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%, so 'days' and 'naics' are already documented with their defaults and optionality. The description reinforces the N-day window concept but adds no syntax, range, or interaction detail (e.g., how naics narrows the window) 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+resource+mechanism: a deadline-window scan of opportunities closing within N days, sorted by urgency. It explicitly names gov.search and gov.digest and says what makes this one different (ignores keywords and freshness), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the two sibling alternatives and the condition that rules them out ('this ignores keywords and freshness'), then lists concrete use cases (last-minute bidding, deadline reminders, pipeline management). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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