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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description adds deposition status and a real auth/context constraint: anonymous hosted callers must supply an inline profile. It does not describe output shape or ranking behavior beyond the word "rank", but the added auth and legacy context clearly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with the deprecation label front-loaded, then the preferred alternative, then the auth caveat. No sentence repeats the schema or the title, and nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter read tool with a nested profile object and no output schema, the description covers scope, deprecation, alternative, and the anonymous-caller requirement. It leaves unspecified what is returned (ranked list with score rationale) and what happens when no profile is supplied and no saved profile exists on non-anonymous calls, which is a minor gap.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the profile parameter is effectively required for anonymous hosted callers even though the schema lists zero required parameters. That resolves a genuine ambiguity about conditional requirement that the schema alone leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb (rank) and resource (federal CanadaBuys contracts) constrained against the caller's business profile, and explicitly marks itself as the legacy federal-only path. An agent can distinguish it from find_matching_opportunities and find_alberta_opportunities 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?

"Prefer find_matching_opportunities for combined CanadaBuys and Alberta APC matches" names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and "Anonymous hosted callers must pass an inline profile" gives a hard invocation prerequisite. It stops short of saying when this tool remains the right choice over search_opportunities or find_alberta_opportunities, so it is strong guidance but not exhaustive routing.

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