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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the phrase 'cautious interpretation,' which hints at conservative output but is vague and not explained further. It does not contradict annotations but adds limited extra context.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the caution phrase, though it remains appropriately terse.

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?

The description implies the output is a percentile but doesn't explicitly state the return format or value, and there is no output schema. The 'cautious interpretation' is ambiguous, leaving an agent uncertain about the nature of the result. Despite annotations covering safety, the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 all three parameters are already documented with meaning (amount_eur is a positive number, project_type is a key, nature has an enum with descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it rests at the baseline.

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 states a specific action (locate an amount) on a specific resource (public award distribution) and the outcome (percentile), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like price_statistics or private_market_prices. The verb 'locate' and explicit scope leave no ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the purpose (e.g., comparing a quote to public awards), but there are no stated conditions or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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