Search Contracting Officer Contacts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: Pro-only access via contacts_access, two input modes with different matching semantics (substring vs exact), result limits (up to 5 vs one), and specific error outcomes (404 and 402). This gives an agent a strong model of runtime behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then access constraint, then usage modes, then error behavior. Every sentence adds operational value and none merely restates the tool name or schema.

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 required parameters and only sparse schema titles, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what to provide, which mode to choose, what results to expect, and what errors to anticipate. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, so the description does not need to restate it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, and it does: name is a substring match, email is exact, and state/agency are optional for disambiguation. It lacks format details for state/agency values, but the core semantics of all four parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 ('Look up') with an exact resource: CONTRACTING OFFICER contact info, and immediately distinguishes itself from get_company_contact on the vendor/teammate side. Calling it a 'RESOLVER, not a directory' further sharpens what the tool does and does not do.

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 states exactly when to use the tool (resolving a specific contracting officer), explicitly names the sibling alternative it is not (get_company_contact), and gives mode-selection guidance: name vs email with optional disambiguating parameters. It also warns that this tool cannot list or browse contacts, preventing misuse.

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