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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully describes returned content, including parent, business types, location, last 12 months of awards, and optional listed company, implying a read-only profile lookup, but it does not state permissions, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the profile contents without waste. Every clause contributes useful scope information.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the returned profile includes. It could be more complete by clarifying read-only behavior or input sourcing in the description, but the schema covers the parameter and the low complexity keeps this near-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about the id or how to obtain it beyond the schema's note that it comes from federal_recipients, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a recipient profile and lists the main fields it contains, so an agent can infer it retrieves a single recipient's details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as federal_recipients or federal_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus federal_recipients or federal_award. The schema parameter note points back to federal_recipients, but the description itself provides no usage context or alternatives.

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