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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds meaningful behavioral scope by clarifying that results are limited to existing awarded contracts, not open solicitations, which prevents misuse. It also discloses the returned data fields and filtering dimensions, giving the agent a clear picture of what the call will do beyond the annotation flags.

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 front-loads the core concept, provides illustrative user queries, lists return fields and filters, and ends with a scope caveat. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure moves from purpose to examples to outputs to boundaries. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title appears.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers return values, filter options, the time-based nature of the query, and the key exclusion (open solicitations). It also gives multiple realistic example parameter combinations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, and the input schema already contains detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, including examples and prefix-matching semantics. The description adds little semantic value beyond naming the filter categories and an example threshold ('over $10M'). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a precise resource and function: 'Federal contracts EXPIRING soon -- the recompete calendar.' It gives concrete example queries and specifies exactly what is returned (incumbent, period of performance, obligated dollars, agency, NAICS/PSC, usaspending.gov link), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from open-solicitation tools by scoping to awarded contracts already held by a vendor.

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 to use the tool ('awarded CONTRACTS already held by a vendor') and when not to: 'for open solicitations still accepting bids use samgov/govcon tools.' Example questions like 'What is up for recompete at DHS next year?' further clarify intended use cases. This is explicit conditional routing with named alternatives.

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