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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses two metering dimensions (per request and per first-seen solicitation, repeats free), trial vs paid caps, the 400 on exceeding plan max, and mid-page truncation semantics via delivery.truncated and delivery.withheld. These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the what-and-where, then returns, then metering, then edge cases. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place given 16 parameters and no annotations; only the metering paragraph runs long enough to risk being skimmed.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers return shape (agency, deadline, codes, document status, source link, total, facets) and failure modes at page boundaries. It stops short of clarifying how results hand off to get_opportunity or the document siblings, which is the main remaining gap.

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 88%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and baseline is 3. The description still adds value on top: page_size 0 = counts/facets only, trial max 25 vs paid max 100 with a 400 above the plan cap, and the fact that specialties never filter but only re-rank.

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+resource: 'Search open government solicitations ... in NextBid's normalized corpus,' with the source list and the shape of the returned record spelled out. It clearly reads as the search entry point, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as get_opportunity (single fetch) or corpus_stats, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: defaults (open=true), the page_size 0 shortcut for counts/facets, and cross-references to list_set_asides and list_tradelines for valid parameter values. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_opportunity guidance and no exclusions, which leaves real routing ambiguous.

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