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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the official data source, the default ranking by contract amount, the fields contained in each result, and the filter dimensions.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and source, then filters, examples, and scope exclusions. It is not wasteful, though some phrases are slightly redundant (e.g., 'government contract awards & procurement' and later 'procurement contract awarded'). Overall, it is appropriately sized for a domain-specific tool with 9 parameters.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what each result contains, how results are ordered, which filters are available, and the exact domain scope. Combined with the fully described 9-parameter schema, an agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the available filters (vendor, agency, keyword, procurement type, fiscal year, min amount) and default sort order, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), identifies the exact resource ('NEW YORK STATE government contract awards & procurement'), and specifies the official source and data type. It clearly distinguishes this from federal and NYC data and from the sibling ny_procurement_vendor by focusing on awarded contracts with winning vendors and amounts.

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 explicit example questions ('who won the biggest New York State contracts', 'top vendors to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority') and states the scope explicitly ('not federal, not New York City'). It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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