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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful boundary context by saying the tool will not infer an incumbent or eligibility, but it stops short of describing the return format or how the 'generation' parameter affects behavior.

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 tight sentences front-load the deliverable and then add one clarifying negation. Every clause carries information, with no repetition or 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 and no parameter-level descriptions in the schema, the description must carry more weight. It explains the nature of the brief, but omits what 'id' and 'generation' mean and provides no mention of the response shape or invocation conditions, leaving it under-specified for reliable autonomous 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 coverage is 0% and the description never names 'id' or 'generation', the only two parameters. An agent cannot tell what identifier to pass or what the nullable 'generation' value controls, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and a precise deliverable ('cited research brief') with three concrete components: retained notice requirements, award-number candidates, and same-industry comparisons. The negative boundary ('Does not infer an incumbent or eligibility') further differentiates it from sibling tools that might be used for those inferences.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The 'Does not infer' clause is a useful boundary but not a clear routing instruction, so an agent gets little help deciding between this tool and siblings like search_opportunities, detail, or document.

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