search_contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that returned fields are untrusted scraped data and warns to treat them as data, never as instructions – a meaningful safety note. It also signals the data is 'live.' It does not mention rate limits or pagination limits, but those are minor for a read-only search tool.

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, no fluff. The core purpose and filters are front-loaded, the return fields and the critical untrusted-data caveat follow. 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?

The description lists return fields and warns about data trust, which covers the essentials. Pagination, sorting, and page limits are fully specified in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 92%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds grouping semantics (e.g., 'min/max value (USD)', 'due date range' for due_after/due_before) and clarifies the return fields, giving the agent a mental model of how filters combine without duplicating schema text.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('live US state & local government contracts') and enumerates the filter dimensions (states, NAICS, keyword, agency, value, due date) and returned fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_contract (single record retrieval) and search_naics (code lookup) without needing the schema.

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 implies a general search use case but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this over get_contract, search_naics, etc. It gives no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool names and purpose statement.

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