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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the data source, the 366-day cap and 12-month default window, the output shape, and notably the cost ($0.009 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana), which is real behavioral context. It stops short of stating rate limits, whether the id is auto-resolved, or null-case 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?

It is front-loaded with a 'Use when...' clause and packs inputs, outputs, source, example and pricing into a compact block. It is slightly dense with semicolon-delimited lists and the pricing/example tail is mildly incidental, but nothing is wasted.

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 paid read tool with no output schema and eight parameters, the description covers inputs, return shape (summary totals plus per-award fields), data provenance, and cost. The only gap is the zero-required-parameter ambiguity (id vs business_number) and any error/null behavior.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema lacks: the YYYY-MM-DD format, the max 366-day span, the default 12-month window, and enumerated category values. It still doesn't clarify the fallback when both id and business_number are omitted.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving a South Korean company's KONEPS government contract wins. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like kr_company_profile, kr_company_resolve, and the kr_trade_* tools, and it names the exact data source (KONEPS).

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?

It gives a clear usage context ('sales, credit or competitor research') and implies the entity must already be resolved via the id/business_number fields. However, it never names the companion tool (kr_company_resolve) or states when NOT to use it, so routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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