score_go_no_go

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds value by explaining deterministic behaviour, detection logic for hard blockers, and output structure. No contradictions. However, it does not detail all possible edge cases or limitations.

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 concise with three sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail the logic and inputs. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 complexity (four parameters, nested objects, output schema present), the description adequately explains inputs and high-level output. It could mention that the output includes a numeric score and recommendations, but the output schema covers details.

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 100% and each parameter has detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add new information beyond summarizing the inputs; therefore it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param semantics.

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 explicitly states that the tool scores a federal solicitation as GO/NO-GO (0-100) against a company profile, and lists specific capabilities like detecting hard blockers, scoring NAICS match, etc. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as find_incumbents or predict_recompete.

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 context on when to use the tool by stating it requires analyzed solicitation documents and a company profile. It mentions it is deterministic and free, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance against siblings.

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