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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating outputs (fit, eligibility mismatches, capability overlap, teaming indicators, evidence gaps, next actions) and confirming no order or payment is created, which is a billing behavior annotations don't cover. It does not state latency, rate limits, or data-retention behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero padding. The free/no-payment positioning is front-loaded followed by the return contents, so an agent can act on the first clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the nested, undocumented input schema, which the description only partially compensates for.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at the two required objects ('public... opportunity', 'company facts'). The pursuit_role enum (prime/subcontractor/either) and buyer_reference parameter get no mention, and no nested field semantics (set_aside, clearances, vehicles) are explained.

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 ('determine whether... appears worth deeper pursuit') and resource ('public U.S. federal opportunity'), scoping the input to buyer-provided non-sensitive company facts. The 'Free:' prefix and 'Creates no order or payment' distinguish it from the paid sibling create_federal_opportunity_qualification_order_5usd.

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?

'Free' plus 'Creates no order or payment' clearly frames this as the no-cost preview step, implying it precedes a paid order. It stops short of explicitly naming the paid alternative or stating the condition to escalate, so the when-to-use is strong but the routing is not fully spelled out.

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