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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the result is a public, unauthenticated URL, that chat apps generate a preview with name/value/closing date, and that no user or workspace data leaks into the link or page. That privacy/security note is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before generating an externally shareable artifact.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by what the link is, how recipients see it, and one usage instruction ('Give the link as it is'). Nothing is redundant.

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 being a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description still explains what the returned link contains and who can access it, which is the only thing that could go wrong here. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or relay the result 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% and the tender_reference parameter is richly documented with format examples across Find a Tender, CanadaBuys and SAM.gov. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (share) and resource (tender) and immediately clarifies the actual output: a public link anyone can open without signing in. No sibling tool offers sharing, and the distinction from viewing tools like get_tender_details is implicit in the 'send someone its link' framing.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to share a tender or send someone its link' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name an alternative or exclusion, but no sibling competes for this intent, so the guidance is practically sufficient.

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