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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations: pagination mechanics (use page, page_metadata.total), return fields, and hierarchy level definitions (P, C, R). No contradiction 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: core search action, returned fields, pagination, and hierarchical level explanation. No wasted words; ideal length for an agent to quickly parse.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers essential aspects: what to search, pagination behavior, and hierarchy codes. It also references the companion tool. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are not documented, but they are not required given the annotations and output schema. Complete for typical agent use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal semantics (e.g., 'partial matches are supported' is already in schema; pagination note aligns with page parameter but is more behavioral). No new parameter-level meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search for organizations or individuals receiving federal funds' by name, UEI, or DUNS. It distinguishes itself from siblings like usaspending_get_recipient by explicitly noting returned hash IDs feed into that tool. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

States clear context: search for recipients by identifier and that results are paginated. Mentions companion usaspending_get_recipient for full profiles, implying a follow-up path. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with other search siblings (e.g., usaspending_search_awards), so not a full 5.

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