lookup_neco_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context: 'Deterministic scrape of the public neco.navy.mil site, free.' This extra detail about safety and cost is valuable beyond 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 three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the action and key fields, then provides usage guidance and differentiation. Every sentence 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description need not detail return values. It covers input guidance, behavioral context (deterministic, free), and unique value proposition. With annotations and full schema coverage, no gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds critical meaning: 'Primary, most robust input' for necoUrl, 'Best-effort' for solicitationNumber, and explains how hkey 'improves solicitationNumber resolution.' This exceeds the schema's descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch and parse') and clearly identifies the resource ('Navy NECO solicitation page'). It lists the structured fields extracted and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'No other govcon MCP exposes NECO data.'

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 provides clear usage context: 'Pass the full NECO URL when you have it (most reliable); solicitationNumber alone is best-effort.' It also mentions that the tool is deterministic and free. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use alternatives, the sibling differentiation is implicit.

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