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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds scope context beyond the annotations: it is legacy and covers federal CanadaBuys data only, not Alberta APC. It does not mention pagination or result-shape behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is solid.

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, zero waste, with the legacy status and scope stated first and the routing recommendation last. Every sentence 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 read-only, three-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description plus full schema coverage gives an agent what it needs to call and correctly route the tool. The remaining gap is purely that behavioral details like result count defaults are left entirely to the schema.

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 three parameters (limit, keywords, province) are already documented in the schema. The description restates keywords and province as filters but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, and never mentions limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('federal CanadaBuys' contracts) plus the filterable dimensions (keywords, province), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling search_opportunities by data coverage. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the broader opportunity search without opening either 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 labels itself 'Legacy' and instructs 'Prefer search_opportunities for combined CanadaBuys and Alberta APC results', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't say when this legacy tool is still the right call (e.g., CanadaBuys-only queries), but the routing intent is unmistakable.

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