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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds what annotations cannot: the authoritative source (SAM.gov), the explicit corpus gap (DIBBS-only small-value RFQs excluded), the payment/auth model (x402 in USDC on Base/Solana/Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. Cost and payment requirements are exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before invoking a metered tool.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and source, return fields plus the exclusion caveat, and pricing/billing terms. Front-loaded with what the tool is, with no filler or repetition of the name.

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 an output schema present, the return-field sentence is mildly redundant but harmless. The definition covers source authority, scope boundaries, invocation modes, and billing — everything needed for a metered, read-only, open-world search tool.

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% and every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum values for type and the NSN example. The description only restates the searchable dimensions already present in the query parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: search DLA RFQs/solicitations/awards published on SAM.gov Contract Opportunities. It also delimits scope by naming the excluded set (small-value DIBBS-only RFQs behind a DoD consent banner), so an agent knows exactly what corpus it is querying.

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 clear search entry points (keyword, NSN, part number) and states that an empty query returns newest DLA notices, which tells the agent how to invoke it in practice. It does not name or route to any sibling tool (e.g. the other gov procurement/tender tools), so the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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