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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the data source is 'l. Cryptographically attested with a post-quantum signed settlement receipt' with a verification URL, and the call costs '$0.02 USDC per call.' This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about trust, verification, and cost—useful for decision-making.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the usage context, then describes the output, provides an illustrative example, and finally includes source/verification and cost details. Each sentence adds important information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and respects the reader's attention.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (entity record and award/bid history by role) and provides an example of how to interpret that data. It also covers cost and verification, which are relevant to invocation decisions. Missing details like response format or error handling are not critical given the simplicity, and the description covers the essential context.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'contractor' with a description: 'UEI, legal name, or entity id.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('Acme Paving LLC') and clarifies the expected input format, helping the agent understand what constitutes a valid contractor identifier. This modest additional value justifies a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Use when vetting a contractor or bidder before a teaming decision or subcontract award.' It then details the specific output: 'Returns the entity record plus award and bid participation history by role (winner, bidder, or vehicle holder).' This is a clear verb+resource combination with precise scope, distinguishing it from related tools like get_intel_owner_profile or get_intel_findings_search.

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?

The description clearly specifies when to use it: 'before a teaming decision or subcontract award.' It also provides a concrete example of how to interpret results ('Acme Paving LLC, winner on 14 of 61 bids...'). While it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, the stated context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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