govcon_fetch_vendor_contract_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. Description adds further context: fuzzy matching, data source (USASpending.gov), 4-hour cache, and return fields. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, parameter details, usage guidance, and caching info. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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 output schema exists, description explains return fields and caching. Covers prerequisites, optional parameter, source verification, and error handling. Complete for a tool with 2 parameters.

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?

Both parameters are described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value: specifies vendor_name is required and uses fuzzy match, lists jurisdiction options with default US. Goes beyond 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?

Clearly states it fetches the complete federal contract award history for a specific vendor. Distinguishes from sibling tool govcon_search_contract_awards by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool (researching a specific company) and when to use the alternative (exploring without a specific vendor). Also provides fallback instructions via report_feedback.

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