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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the record is 'public', implying no special access required, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or response format, so with annotations present this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the identifier requirement. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema. The description specifies the resource type, the record scope (public), and the exact identifier format. Combined with annotations, this provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the return value, but for a getter named 'get_vendor' this is implied and not a critical gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter is a '12-character UEI' used to fetch the record, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare length constraints. While it doesn't expand the acronym UEI, it clearly identifies the parameter's role and format, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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' and identifies the resource as 'public vendor or awardee record' with the exact identifier '12-character UEI'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_vendors (search) and get_vendor_awards (awards for a vendor), making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when you have a 12-character UEI, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as search_vendors for lookups without a known UEI. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit, so it falls at 'implied usage'.

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