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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is flagged as legacy and its data scope is bounded to federal CanadaBuys with Alberta APC excluded. It stops short of describing the summary's output format, but the added scope and deprecation context is strong.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the 'Legacy' status so an agent immediately knows the tool's standing. Every clause earns its place by either scoping or redirecting.

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 zero-parameter summarizer with no output schema, the description covers scope, deprecation, and routing well. The only gap is that it does not hint at what the summary contains or its granularity, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter syntax or defaults are needed here.

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 (summarize) and a precisely scoped resource (federal CanadaBuys contracts only), and explicitly carves itself out from the broader toolset. An agent can distinguish it from search_opportunities, daily_bid_brief, and the Alberta APC tools without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: for combined discovery use search_opportunities or daily_bid_brief, and notes this summary excludes Alberta APC. The alternative and the condition selecting it are both 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.