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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these and adds context about the data source and return fields. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination, which are not covered by annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose and parameters, return fields, and source. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return fields. It lacks guidance on usage limits or when to use sibling tools, but these are covered in other dimensions. Overall, it is complete for a search tool.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description summarizes the parameters (company name, state, NAICS code) but adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource '700K+ registered US federal contractors and grantees', specifying search criteria (company name, state, NAICS code). It differentiates from the sibling 'sam.gov.entity_detail' by focusing on search rather than detail retrieval.

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 implies the tool is for searching entities but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like entity_detail, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools hints at a search-then-detail workflow, but no explicit guidance is given.

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