Get Contract Vehicle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: direct awards return {status: 'standalone', vehicle: null, message: ...} and instructs the agent to check status before reading vehicle fields. This goes beyond annotation signals.

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 purpose, concise usage guidance, a single parameter bullet, and a clearly separated edge-case note. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core behavior, the parameter source, sibling routing, and the important direct-award return shape. It is complete enough for safe autonomous invocation.

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 provides 0% description coverage for piid, but the description fully compensates by clarifying it is the ORDER's PIID, not the vehicle's own PIID, and indicates where to obtain it. This prevents a likely misuse.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get the contract vehicle (IDIQ, GWAC, FSS schedule, or BPA) against which an order was placed. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_vehicle and get_vehicle_holders by explaining what those are for.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: chain into get_vehicle for vehicle ceiling/period detail, get_vehicle_holders for competing holders, and order PIID should come from search_contracts or get_contract. Also covers the direct-award edge case.

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