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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest-first), pagination (cursor-based up to 1000/page), filtering options, output fields, and even pricing ($0.05/row). It lacks details on data freshness or update frequency, hence not a 5.

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 packed with information and front-loaded with the purpose ('Which companies just won federal money?'). It efficiently covers purpose, pagination, filters, output, and cost. Could be slightly more concise but current length is justified.

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 tool's complexity (7 optional params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it explains pagination, filters, output fields, and pricing. Lacks error handling or rate limit info, but for a feed tool with cursor pagination it is adequate.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description summarizes filterable fields (NAICS, agency, min_amount, kind, since) but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. 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 tool provides a bulk feed of USAspending prime awards, newest-first, with specific filters and output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like govcon_award_search (search) and govcon_feed_subawards (subawards) by focusing on prime awards as a funded-growth signal.

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 usage for monitoring recent awards ('Which companies just won federal money?') and specifies it's a bulk feed with cursor pagination. While not explicitly stating when not to use, the context from sibling names (e.g., govcon_award_search for specific details) provides sufficient guidance.

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