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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the result contains (registration URLs, commodity code systems, annual spend, registration steps, municipal blind spots) and by imposing a citation requirement on canonical_url, which no annotation communicates. It omits any note on coverage gaps or empty results, keeping it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage trigger and citation rule. The dense enumeration of returned artifacts is informative rather than filler, and nothing could be cut without losing selection-relevant signal.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and annotations handle the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it and report results. The one gap is that it advertises county and school district lookups while the schema exposes no corresponding parameters, leaving ambiguity about how those queries are expressed.

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% and each of city, state, and region already has examples and an enum for region, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's mention of county, school district, and region hints at accepted query granularity but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource (official vendor registration URLs, commodity code systems, spend, registration steps) across a precisely bounded scope of 50 state portals and 250+ municipal portals. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_commodity_codes or search_govcon_resources, since those do not return portal registration data.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: "Use this when a user asks where to register or find bids in a state, city, county, school district, or region," which gives a clear context for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use lookup_commodity_codes instead), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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