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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the returned profile contents, the ID format (UUID with level suffix), and optional scoping of totals by fiscal year and award type. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific contents. The ID origin and optional filters are introduced efficiently without repetition or fluff. Every sentence adds essential context.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so return values are structured), the description covers prerequisites (ID source), optional filters, and cross-referencing tips. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call this tool, and the read-only/idempotent annotations cover safety. No meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the recipient_id format and provenance (from which tools), and clarifies that award_type and fiscal_year scope award totals. This goes beyond the schema's basic attribute descriptions, aiding correct parameter use.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a recipient's full profile' and lists specific contents (address, business type codes, parent org, alternate names, totals). This distinguishes it from siblings like usaspending_search_recipients (search) and usaspending_get_award (award details), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's role.

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 description implies when to use it: after obtaining a recipient_id from usaspending_search_recipients or usaspending_get_award. It provides context for ID prerequisites but does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., 'use search_recipients to find recipients'). The guidance is clear but slightly implicit.

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