Get Prime Relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the summary block composition, paginated data rows, a 'read summary first' directive, and the limit cap of 250. This gives the agent operational expectations without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by concise parameter bullets and a note about the response structure. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description supplies enough operational guidance to call the tool: required UEI, limit cap, pagination, and the summary block. It could add explicit date-parameter guidance, but the remaining gaps are minor given the schema and titles.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains uei as the SUB's 12-character UEI and constrains limit to max 250, which is valuable. However, it does not describe offset, date_from, or date_to semantics or formats, leaving part of the parameter space undocumented.

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 every prime that has paid THIS company as a subcontractor,' and immediately distinguishes the direction from get_prime_subawards. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly differentiates it from the 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?

The description explicitly names get_prime_subawards as the opposite-direction alternative, telling an agent when to prefer this tool. It also provides domain context with 'Award & Compliance tool' and clarifies the entity being queried as the subcontractor.

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