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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: full-text matching behavior, data freshness (civilian vs DoD 90-day withholding), source (USAspending.gov), and return fields including pagination via hasNext. It explains why recent defense data looks sparse, which is beyond annotation scope.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with purpose and flows logically through matching, output fields, and data caveats. Every sentence adds useful information; however, it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers return fields, pagination, and data source nuances. The tool's complexity (paging, freshness, matching) is fully addressed, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 covers both parameters descriptively, but the description adds value: explains ordering (largest amount first), page size (25), and provides concrete examples ('Booz Allen', 'Lockheed Martin'), plus clarifies that over-specific queries return nothing. This is far beyond the schema's baseline.

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 and resource: 'Top US federal prime contract awards won by a company, largest award amount first.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_agency_spend, get_expiring_contracts) by focusing on company-specific award lookup and explicitly states use cases like sizing a contractor's business.

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?

Provides strong context: says when to use it ('size a contractor's federal business, see which agencies buy from it'), gives explicit matching guidance (use common/legal name, not ticker), and warns about overly specific names returning nothing. However, it does not directly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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