usas_analyze_incumbent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds substantial value by detailing what signals are assembled (pctConsumed, mod count, etc.), that it emits pressureHints (never a composite score), and limits (at most 3 upstream calls). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is dense but not verbose, front-loaded with core purpose, and structured to quickly convey scope, signals, limitations, and bounded behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the output by mentioning pressureHints, _meta.fieldsUnavailable, and the nature of returned data. It is complete for most use cases but could explicitly list the returned fields or structure.

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%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: explains generatedInternalId is 'the ONE award' and gives example sources, clarifies otherAwardsLimit as a cap with defaults, and states includeOtherAwards triggers a bounded recipient search with default true.

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?

Description clearly states it performs 'per-award incumbent + PUBLIC recompete-pressure analysis for ONE award' using generatedInternalId. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like usas_get_award_detail (just details) or usas_search_recompetes (search).

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 context about bounded upstream calls, optional includeOtherAwards, and explicitly declares unavailable fields (CPARS, past performance). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, missing a clear exclusion criterion.

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