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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or requires authentication. For a tool fetching details, the lack of read-only indication or safety information is a gap.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and input requirement.

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 one parameter with full schema description and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks context on return format, error behavior, or any limitations. It is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter already described in the schema. The description adds context (federal CanadaBuys or Alberta APC) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'reference' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('details for a federal CanadaBuys or Alberta APC opportunity'), and the required input ('by reference number'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_alberta_opportunity_details' by covering both CanadaBuys and Alberta APC.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_alberta_opportunity_details', 'search_opportunities'). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preference conditions.

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