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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it discloses what the response contains and the important caveat that enrichment fields appear only 'when the source published them,' so agents can expect partial results. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unknown references.

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; the verb, resource, and keyed scope come first, followed by the field list and the caveat. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 correctly compensates by listing the fields returned and flagging their conditional presence. For a read-only single-parameter lookup that is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is disambiguation from get_alberta_opportunity_details.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already explains the reference format with examples. The description only restates 'by reference number' and that either CanadaBuys or Alberta formats are accepted, adding no syntax or resolution guidance beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (get details for an opportunity) and states scope: any federal CanadaBuys or Alberta APC record, keyed by reference number. It also enumerates distinguishing data fields (UNSPSC, GSIN, trade agreements, Buy Canadian flags). It does not, however, separate itself from the sibling get_alberta_opportunity_details, which appears to overlap on the Alberta portion.

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: the agent infers this is the lookup to call once it already has a reference number, versus find_opportunities/search_opportunities which produce candidates. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, and the presence of a sibling get_alberta_opportunity_details makes the routing ambiguous.

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