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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the returned fields (ids, UEIs, parent/child level), which is genuine behavioral content. But it omits matching semantics (prefix vs substring, case sensitivity), result ordering, and any note that output is capped by the size parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scoping ('by name') comes first. The trailing 'parent (P) or child (C) level' is slightly cryptic and unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — it does so partially (ids, UEIs, level) but leaves the '(P)/(C)' abbreviations unexplained and the result structure ambiguous. For a two-parameter lookup this is minimally adequate rather than 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax or matching detail for 'q' beyond 'by name'. The parent (P)/child (C) reference is output-side, not a parameter, so it does not deepen parameter meaning — 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?

Specific verb 'Find' plus resource 'federal award recipients', with scope narrowed to name lookup and stated output fields (ids, UEIs, parent/child level). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings federal_recipient, federal_awards, and federal_award, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by name' and the schema's '3+ characters' note. There is no statement of when to choose this over federal_recipient or federal_awards, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions or fallback guidance.

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