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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: it is a legacy tool, the search scope is federal-only, and anonymous hosted callers need an inline profile (an auth-shaped constraint). It does not describe ranking behavior or result richness, but that is a minor gap given 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, each carrying distinct load: scope, preferred alternative, caller requirement. The legacy/deprecation status is front-loaded, which is exactly the information an agent needs first.

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, fully-documented, no-output-schema read tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the deprecation routing and the caller constraint. It is nearly complete; only ranking/return-shape nuance is absent, which is acceptable given the tool's legacy status and the sibling that supersedes it.

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 the schema already documents days, limit, and every nested profile field, including the note that profile overrides a saved profile. The description adds no semantics for these parameters beyond repeating the profile-override idea, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: rank federal CanadaBuys contracts against your business profile. It explicitly scopes the source to CanadaBuys only, which is the exact axis that separates it from find_matching_opportunities (combined CanadaBuys + Alberta APC). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative (find_matching_opportunities) and the condition selecting it (combined CanadaBuys and Alberta APC matches). It also gives a prerequisite for a specific caller class: anonymous hosted callers must pass an inline profile. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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