search_awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that roughly 30% of award notices have no dollar figure, resulting in `award_value` null and counted in `coverage.unvalued_rows`, and interprets this as a withheld amount rather than a free contract. It also instructs to read `notes` and pass on its content. This adds meaningful behavioral context about data quality and null handling.

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 three short paragraphs: purpose, use cases and alternatives, and a data caveat. Every sentence adds value, and the most important info is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 search tool with fully described parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, exclusions, and a critical data nuance (missing award values). It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool and know what to expect in results, without needing to explain the full output schema.

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 has 100% coverage, with each of the 5 parameters described in detail. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond emphasizing that `supplier` is preferred for filtering by winner, which is already noted in the schema's `keywords` description. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search awarded Canadian federal contracts' and specifies what info it returns: 'who won, for how much, when, and for which buyer.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly pointing to search_tenders and summarize_spend for different use cases.

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 this for a supplier's track record, for what similar work has gone for, or for "who won X".' and then gives exclusions: 'Not for opportunities still open: search_tenders covers notices accepting bids.' and 'For ranked totals rather than individual contracts, use summarize_spend.' This is clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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