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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: 'total value (obligated dollars plus unexercised ceiling — not revenue received)', 'outlays when reported', and coverage limitations ('only prime contract awards of $1M or more... sums understate total federal revenue'). This goes well beyond structured 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, key fields, data coverage caveats, and sibling alternative are all covered in a compact paragraph. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: award date, recipient, agency, total value, outlays, period-of-performance end date, and description. It also addresses data source, coverage thresholds, and how to interpret understatement, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, with each of the 6 parameters already well-described. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does contextualize the meaning of 'total value' but that is an output field, not a parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get federal government contract awards (from USAspending.gov) won by a specific public company.' It clearly identifies the target (specific public company) and differentiates from sibling GetTopGovernmentContractors by noting 'use GetTopGovernmentContractors to rank companies market-wide.'

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Useful for gauging a company's reliance on federal spending; use GetTopGovernmentContractors to rank companies market-wide.' It also clarifies coverage limitations (prime awards ≥ $1M) that help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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