get_contractor_profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the $0.01 cost, the authentication requirement, and the specific federal records involved. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (cost and purpose), and each clause earns its place: what it resolves, what it returns, when to use it, and what is required. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return fields. It also covers cost, auth, use case, and relationship to a sibling tool. For a straightforward two-parameter lookup, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including default/max for limit and min character length for company. The tool description does not add material detail about how the parameters affect behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('official federal recipient records'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: legal name, UEI, parent/child level, recent award totals, and profile link. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_federal_contracts by explicitly positioning itself as the disambiguation step.

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 gives an explicit directive: 'Use before search_federal_contracts to disambiguate entities.' It also discloses a prerequisite (WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY) and the paid nature of the call, giving the agent concrete conditions for when this tool is appropriate.

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