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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the search scope and filter options but does not describe result format, pagination, or open-world behavior; it also mentions a 'status' filter that is not present in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. The only issue is the inaccurate 'status' mention, but structurally it is appropriately sized.

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 simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits guidance on how this search relates to sibling search tools and contains a phantom status filter, which leaves some context incomplete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description actually undermines the schema by claiming filtering by 'status' is possible when no status parameter exists. It adds no meaningful information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool searches Canadian federal government contracts and lists concrete filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_alberta_opportunities through the federal scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, such as search_opportunities or search_alberta_opportunities. The federal-contract scope is implied but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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