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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by warning that results should not be treated as independent cost estimates or win odds, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds an important caveat. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Although the tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects), there is no output schema and the description does not explain return value structure, what 'comps' entails, or how the notice_id is used. The caveat about cost estimates/win odds provides some context but leaves significant 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?

The input schema has only notice_id with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain how notice_id is used or clarify the relationship between the tool name (opportunity comps) and the notice_id parameter. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'historical comparable public awards', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_award or get_opportunity. The scope is unambiguous: it returns comparable awards, not a single award.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The second sentence ('Results are not an independent cost estimate or win odds') is a caveat about output interpretation, not a usage guideline. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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