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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds important behavioral context: the response includes both award data and owner findings, the result is cryptographically attested, verification is available at a URL, and the call costs $0.02 USDC. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return behavior, a concrete example, and then attestation and pricing details. Each sentence adds value, though the example sentence is truncated with 'findings and.' and the commercial/verification details add length, so it is not perfectly polished.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the call returns, the use scenario, an illustrative example, the attestation mechanism, verification method, and cost. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result at a high level.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully: uei is the contractor UEI and owner is the owner slug or id. The description reinforces that the contractor is identified by UEI and clarifies the owner relationship, but it does not add significant new parameter-level detail, so the schema coverage carries most of the semantic weight.

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 states a specific use case—researching a contractor's track record with a specific owner before a bid/teaming decision—and defines the exact return scope: joint awards plus the owner's tribunal findings. The example with USACE Norfolk District and a marine contractor further clarifies the resource, and the combined contractor-owner focus distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_intel_contractor_profile or get_intel_owner_profile.

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 gives a clear usage context: use when assessing a contractor-owner relationship before a bid or teaming decision. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scenario is specific enough that an agent can route to this tool appropriately.

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