Discover supplier project questions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add real behavioral context: no key or delivery dates needed, a 503 signals an unavailable reviewed source, and the scope-activation caveat is a genuine workflow warning. That is useful beyond structured fields.

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?

Two long, densely packed sentences front-load a broad list of outputs before stating the actual input-framed purpose. Nothing is egregiously wasteful, but the ordering buries the actionable part and the enumerated output list is hard to parse.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it lists categories (scope support, event questions, date policies, sources, rule identities) which partially does that. But it omits error handling beyond the 503 hint, pagination/format, and how the three required parameters change the response, so it's only minimally complete for a discovery endpoint.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't explain how state, hired_by and project_type shape the returned questions. The two enums are self-documenting, but hired_by's semantics (whose perspective drives the question set) are left entirely to the schema.

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 names the resource ('supplier-events-v3 scope', 'jurisdiction-specific event questions', 'date policies', 'sources') but is dense and jargon-heavy, mixing several outputs into one clause. The verb 'Returns' is generic, and it never cleanly states it's a discovery/lookup endpoint for a given state, project type and hiring role. An agent knows roughly what comes back, but the purpose is blurred.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the siblings are named or contrasted. The line 'Approval of research alone does not activate a scope' hints at a workflow caveat but doesn't tell the agent when to call this tool versus the deadline calculators or lien guides.

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