Get Prime Relationships

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds context: the 'Award & Compliance tool' classification, a limit cap of 250, and an important behavioral note about reading the 'summary' block first. This adds meaningful operational guidance 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 compact and well-structured: main functionality, tool category, key parameter notes, and output summary guidance. No redundant words; important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still mentions the 'summary' block and paginated 'data'. It covers the tool's purpose, direction, key parameters, and output behavior. The only gap is the minimal explanation of optional date/offset parameters, which are inferable but not explicitly documented.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'uei' (the SUB's UEI) and 'limit' (max 250), which is useful, but it omits offset, date_to, and date_from entirely. The description partially mitigates the schema gap but does not fully cover parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('every prime that has paid THIS company as a subcontractor'), and immediately disambiguates from the sibling tool by naming the opposite direction. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with get_prime_subawards, clarifying the direction and implying when each tool is appropriate. However, it does not provide broader when/when-not guidance beyond that sibling relationship, so it falls short of full usage-exclusion criteria.

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