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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses the fallback comparison logic (same buyer+sector, else same kind of work nearby/district), that it reports sample size, that it does not read tender documents, and even a pricing note ('Free during beta'). These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot convey.

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 core decision is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the long enumeration of outputs is dense but each item is informative. It is slightly list-heavy, but there is little filler and the structure (purpose, modes, outputs, scope limits) is logical.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the analysis dimensions it returns. With all four params optional, it clearly explains the two alternative ways to invoke it, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the mutual exclusivity of tender_id vs. buyer+cpv and the provenance of tender_id. It says nothing about the country parameter's role, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 opens with the exact decision it supports ('Should I bid, and at what price?') and then enumerates the concrete analysis outputs (bidder counts, single-bid share, price range, incumbents, win rates). This clearly separates it from siblings like award_history and competitor_profile, which are raw lookups rather than bid/no-bid analysis.

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 the two valid invocation modes – a tender_id (explicitly sourced from search_tenders/match_company) or a buyer+sector pair – so the agent knows exactly how to trigger it. It also draws a scope boundary ('Does not read the tender documents'). It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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