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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld); the description goes well beyond by disclosing data freshness ('recent months are provisional; Defense reports about 90 days late'), precision ('Exact decimal strings'), coverage limitations ('No link does not mean no contracts', 'automatic exact matches... plus reviewed links'), and access tiering ('Free: trailing 92 days; history: Pro'). This is exactly the context annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resource and scope, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information (modes, precision, latency, coverage, pricing). The telegraphic fragment style is dense but not wasteful; a couple of clauses (e.g., 'Gross, signed deobligations, net') are terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety; the description fills the remaining behavioral gaps (latency, precision, coverage, tiers) well. The main shortfall is that with 12 parameters at 0% schema coverage, most parameter usage and pagination behavior go unexplained.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only meaningfully explains two of them ('include=actions' and 'award_id'). page, limit, sort, period, fiscal_year, agency, and sub_agency are left entirely undocumented, so most parameters get no added semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('U.S. federal prime-contract obligations (USAspending, FY2015+)') and narrows scope to 'one issuer, across all share classes', so the agent knows exactly what data it returns. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling search_gov_contracts, so the get-vs-search distinction must be inferred.

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 mode switches ('include=actions adds actions; award_id returns only attributed actions...') imply how to steer the tool toward summary vs detail output, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool routing (e.g., when to prefer search_gov_contracts), leaving selection guidance implicit.

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