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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: entitlement gating ('(Pro) needs the Pro plan') and data provenance (GSA CALC ceiling rates, SCA or Davis-Bacon rates). No rate limits, pagination, or result-size behavior is disclosed, keeping it below 5.

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 umbrella statement is front-loaded and each subsequent bullet is scoped to exactly one mode, so the description is scannable and dense. Shorthand lists (e.g. 'type (SCA | DBA)') compress enum values without wasting words. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given the complexity of five modes over a free-form filters object, the description supplies mode selection, required fields, and enum vocabularies — nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it assumes familiarity with domain acronyms (WD, SCA, CALC) and does not say how to obtain the referenced WD.

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 0% and `filters` is an untyped free-form object, so the description carries the entire parameter burden — and it does so extensively, enumerating required vs optional filters per mode with enum shorthands (FFP | T&M | CPFF, 8A | SBA | SDVOSBC, HS | AA | BA) and formats (value as a string, e.g. "2200000"). It falls short of 5 because it never clarifies how the flat filter names map into the nested `filters` object or whether unrelated filters are ignored.

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 umbrella phrase 'Price evidence for a bid' plus five explicitly named modes (benchmark, position, labor_rates, wage_rates, wage_summary) each with their own input list make the tool's scope unambiguous. An agent can tell what each mode does without opening the schema. It stops short of 5 only because the description never relates itself to the sibling tools (search, market, get).

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?

Usage is implied through mode differentiation (benchmark gives a distribution, position ranks a value, wage_summary gives the spread) and one concrete workflow hint: 'For one place, get the WD first and read its rates.' The Pro plan prerequisite is also flagged. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing against sibling tools, so this remains implied rather than stated.

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