get_contractor_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01) and auth requirement (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY), which are key operational traits. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a lookup and the fields listed imply no mutations. It adds useful context beyond what structured data would provide.

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 sentences: first states purpose and data items, second gives usage and auth. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most important info (paid cost). Every word earns its place.

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 2-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and auth. It lists the returned fields sufficiently. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or pagination behavior, but the 'limit' param is documented in schema. Overall, it's complete enough for typical use.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, but that's fine since schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Resolve a company name to its official federal recipient records' and lists specific fields (legal name, UEI, parent/child level, recent federal award totals, profile link). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_federal_contracts' by positioning as a disambiguation step.

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 says 'Use before search_federal_contracts to disambiguate entities,' giving clear usage context relative to a specific sibling tool. Also notes the requirement for WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, which is a prerequisite.

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