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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by labeling the tool 'legacy' and constraining it to CanadaBuys federal scope, but it says nothing about return format, coverage, or staleness beyond the legacy tag.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the legacy scope constraint front-loaded before the routing recommendation. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose only parameter is fully documented in the schema, this is nearly complete. A brief note on what the details response contains would close the remaining 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'reference' as the reference or solicitation number. The description restates the same dual-key semantics without adding format, validation, or example detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('get federal contract details'), names the source system (CanadaBuys), the lookup key (reference or solicitation number), and flags legacy status. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_opportunity_details and get_alberta_opportunity_details.

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 routes the agent: use get_opportunity_details for federal or Alberta APC tenders, implying this tool is only for legacy CanadaBuys federal references. Both the preferred alternative and the condition selecting it are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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