search_federal_contracts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds critical operational behavior: the call costs $0.01, requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, and returns results sorted largest first. This meaningfully helps an agent understand side effects and prerequisites. 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?

Two sentences pack the cost flag, resource, output fields, filter options, and auth requirement without fluff. The most decision-critical detail (PAID) is front-loaded. Every clause 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and sorting order, which is enough for an agent to interpret results. Required auth, cost, and optional filters are all covered. The annotations handle safety and open-world expectations, completing the picture.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description loosely refers to 'agency and date-window filters' and 'any company', but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('search') and resource ('Federal contract awards won by any company'), and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contractor_profile by focusing on award records with award id, dollar amount, agency, dates, description, and link. The sorting behavior ('largest first') adds further precision.

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 clear context: use this to find federal contract awards for a company, with optional agency and date-window filters. It also states the prerequisite that WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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