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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by naming the external model (Cohere Command A+) and clarifying the task is explanatory, reinforcing the read-only nature. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 16-word sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers only purpose and does not mention key behaviors like inline-vs-saved profile precedence or the shape of the returned analysis. The schema's profile description partially compensates, but the overall description is not fully complete.

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 five parameters (reference, profile, question, max_tokens, business_context) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable since the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb ('review') and resource ('CanadaBuys tender'), with clear deliverables: 'explain fit, risks, and next steps'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contract_details (retrieval) and summarize_contracts (summary) by focusing on evaluative analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bid_no_bid_scorecard or summarize_contracts. The intended use case is implied by the verb 'review' and the deliverables, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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