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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it specifies that the result is scoped to a rolling window, which is not derivable from annotations. It also discloses that the outcome field includes both normalized and raw prose, adding useful detail. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and identifier format are front-loaded, and the limitation is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence adds essential information, and the structure is optimal for an agent scanning multiple tool descriptions.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return payload (protester, decided_on, outcome with raw prose, and PDF link) and the constraint that limits results. It addresses the main potential failure mode (B-number not in the window) and provides examples. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly or interpret its result is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter b_number, including format examples and case-insensitivity. The description repeats this example and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value but doesn't compensate for any gap because none exists.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a single GAO bid-protest decision by its B-number'. It provides examples of valid identifiers and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gao_protests_recent and gao_protests_search by explicitly limiting to the rolling window, making it clear this is a single-record fetch rather than a list or search tool.

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 explicitly states when this tool will and will not succeed: it only returns decisions already present in gao_protests_recent's rolling window. This gives the agent a clear condition for choosing this tool over alternatives, effectively pointing to the sibling that defines the data scope. While it doesn't name a fallback tool, the exclusion is unambiguous and directly tied to a sibling tool.

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