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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by disclosing the rolling feed nature (~5 newest decisions per daily crawl), coverage limitations, and the normalized-plus-raw outcome sentence format. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations and no contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, output, example questions, and coverage limitation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return shape (B-number(s), protester, decided_on date, normalized and raw outcome sentence). It also covers coverage limitations and directs to a sibling for depth. For a simple filterable-list tool, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents days, limit, and outcome including defaults and allowed values. The description restates days and outcome but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 identifies the resource (recently decided GAO bid-protest decisions), the action (returns decisions filtered by days and outcome), and the output fields (B-number, protester, decided_on, outcome sentence). It also distinguishes itself from gao_protests_coverage and implicitly from gao_protests_search by noting this is not GAO's full historical archive.

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 states when the tool is appropriate (recent decisions, questions like 'how often does GAO sustain protests') and explicitly directs users to gao_protests_coverage for coverage depth. It does not explicitly name gao_protests_search as the alternative for full-archive queries, but the 'not GAO's full historical archive' exclusion provides a clear context signal.

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