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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the data is queried live (no download needed) and explains the 'Not Available' firm field for individual consultant contracts, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 concise, with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and results, then adds the data volume and key caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what it searches, what it returns, the scale, the caveat, and the live/keyless nature.

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 has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It lists the returned fields (contract amount, sector, borrower country, dates) and mentions the 'Not Available' caveat, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the exact response structure or pagination, but that's not critical given the search nature.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter documented (firm, year, limit, sector, country, keyword). The description only summarizes the filters ('Filter by country, awarded firm name, sector, and contract year'), adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) contract award data'), and specifies the returned fields (firms/consultants, contract amount, sector, borrower country, dates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like idb_search_notices and idb_check_mdb_debarment by focusing on awards under IDB-financed projects, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 clear context on what the tool does (search awards) and adds usage hints such as 'Keyless' and 'queried live against the same data as IDB's 70MB awards CSV — no download needed', implying it is the convenient way to access award data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' level.

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