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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses the initial pipeline state ('Watching'), that the response reports the e-tendering portal, and the follow-up loop when the portal account is unknown (ask, pass the question on, then record_portal_account). It also names the account/workspace prerequisite. It doesn't cover error cases such as an unknown reference, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

It is front-loaded with the trigger condition and tightens toward exclusions at the end, with every sentence carrying routing or behavioral payload. It is dense and slightly run-on across the prerequisites and follow-up sentences, but there is 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values needn't be described; the description instead supplies the prerequisites, the resulting pipeline state, and the portal-account follow-up flow. For a one-required-parameter mutation, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented with examples of reference formats and the workspace-naming rule. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the multi-reference behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: save a tender to the team's pipeline for consideration, landing it in the 'Watching' stage. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest siblings by name (watch_tenders for alerts, record_bid_call for decisions), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ("add this to our pipeline", "let's track the Falkirk cleaning framework") plus two explicit exclusions that name the alternative tool for each case. The when/when-not split is unambiguous.

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