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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results include provenance and a generation-pinned cursor, which informs the agent about pagination and result stability. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 sentences deliver the core scope and a key behavioral detail with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, making it fast for an agent to parse.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 11 specialized sibling tools, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify how q, limit, or cursor should be used, nor does it explain when to use this broad search instead of search_opportunities or search_exclusions, so an agent cannot reliably select or invoke it correctly in all cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for the sparse schema. It partially does by enumerating possible collection values, but it leaves q, limit, and cursor (as an input parameter) unexplained. The cursor is only mentioned in the results context, not as an input, so agents lack critical usage semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and names concrete resources ('public opportunities, vendors, awards, exclusions, or reference collections'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from specialized siblings like search_exclusions or search_opportunities, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic search instead of the specialized sibling tools (e.g., search_exclusions, search_opportunities). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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