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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It does add the upstream data source (GETS), which tells the agent the contracts are government-procurement only, and clarifies that derived exposure metrics are returned. No auth, freshness, or coverage caveats (subsidiaries, historical depth) are given.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and data source, then contents, then use cases. No redundancy, though the final 'useful for' sentence is softer than the preceding factual sentences and carries the least weight.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered by the schema. The description supplies purpose, provenance, and analytic framing. It stops short of noting coverage limits or whether results span subsidiaries, which would matter for interpreting government-dependency exposure.

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%, so ticker, from, and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description only implies ticker scope via 'NZX-listed company' and adds nothing about date-range or pagination behaviour, so it sits at the 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?

Specific verb (get), specific resource (government contracts awarded via GETS), and an explicit scope qualifier (NZX-listed company). It also previews the payload contents (contract history, agencies, values, government revenue exposure), which lets an agent distinguish it from neighbours like get_political_connections or get_agency_charity_funding.

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?

Names concrete use cases: assessing government dependency, procurement relationships, and public-sector revenue concentration. That gives clear context for when to reach for it, but it never states exclusions or names an alternative tool for adjacent questions (e.g. general revenue breakdown via get_revenue_segments).

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