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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: result ordering ('largest first'), the data model caveat that a parent's money sits on its units, that a parent UEI's own obligations 'can be small or negative', and that parent_rollup is returned. These are semantics an agent cannot infer from structured fields and would otherwise misread.

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 core purpose and the run_plan alternative are front-loaded, and every sentence carries content. The middle sentence is heavily packed with parentheticals ('parent, listed-company ticker (if matched)... its OWN obligations'), which taxes readability slightly, but nothing is extraneous.

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 no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does: UEI, parent, ticker when matched, own obligations, ordering, and parent_rollup. For a data-model-subtle tool, it supplies exactly the context needed to interpret results correctly.

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 schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit' fully, including the UEI example. The description restates the name/UEI dual-mode lookup but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. Notably, 'limit' is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Find award recipients') and enumerates entity types (companies, universities, governments) plus the lookup keys (name or UEI). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_plan, search_codes, or naics_finder.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent: 'for a company's total use run_plan with a company filter (name or ticker).' That is a named alternative with the exact condition that selects it, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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