Get Price Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Pro only' access restriction, 'Factual positioning, not a recommendation', and the fact that each sample's recipient_uei and award_id_piid chain into get_company_profile / get_contract. It does not detail failure modes or edge cases, but for a read-only query tool with strong annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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?

The lead sentence front-loads the core purpose, followed by a compact usage/distinction paragraph, then a scannable bullet list of parameters, and finally output-chaining and disclaimer notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is appropriate for a tool with 10 parameters and 0% schema descriptions.

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 complexity, the description covers purpose, usage alternative, access restriction, all parameters at a functional level, output sample linkage, and interpretational caveats. The output schema exists to handle return-value details, and annotations handle the read-only safety profile. The only deferred information is the benchmark param caveats, but that is a reasonable reference to a sibling tool's docstring.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter documentation. It covers naics and value with formats and required status, explains that the filter parameters behave the same as get_price_benchmark, and gives sample_limit's max of 25. It defers detailed caveats (pricing_type raw-code, action_date issues) to get_price_benchmark's docstring rather than spelling them out, which is a minor gap that prevents a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get where YOUR specific contract/bid value sits (percentile rank) against real comparable contracts, plus a sample of the nearest ones by value.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_price_benchmark, naming what that tool does differently. An agent can tell exactly what this tool computes and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Bid & Proposal / Negotiate tool, Pro only' and labels this the "is my number reasonable" check. It contrasts with get_price_benchmark by noting the benchmark gives a market range without placing any one number in it, which tells the agent when to choose which tool. The closing 'Factual positioning, not a recommendation' further sets expectations for the tool's output.

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