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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'exact source-backed' indicates deterministic matching without approximation, and 'official opportunity descriptions' scopes the data source. It doesn't mention result ordering or pagination, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It includes the key qualifiers 'exact source-backed' and 'official opportunity descriptions' without 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 simple with 2 parameters, and annotations provide safety/reliability information. The description conveys the core purpose but does not explain what constitutes a 'fact', how results are ordered, or whether a return structure is expected. Since there is no output schema, some additional detail on return format would be helpful, though the description is minimally adequate.

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 the description provides no information about the parameters 'q' or 'limit'. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify query semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, field targeting) or the effect of the limit parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'exact source-backed facts extracted from official opportunity descriptions.' It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'exact source-backed' and 'deterministic' (from title), which implies a precise, non-fuzzy search over extracted facts rather than full-text or non-deterministic matching.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It implies use when needing exact source-backed facts, but it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like search_opportunities or get_opportunity_extracted, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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