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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by warning that a publication must not be read as a confirmed available contract and by enumerating the returned artifacts (original-language descriptions, source links, qualification status).

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the first front-loads what is retrieved and the second carries the interpretive caveat. Both earn their place.

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 usefully enumerates what the call returns and adds an important interpretive warning, which is more than most single-parameter getters do. The only real gap is how to obtain a valid id and any error behavior for a malformed one.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, though the schema does carry a regex pattern that communicates the TED id format. The description only gestures at the parameter ('one notice') and adds no format or sourcing guidance, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor is entirely silent.

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 ('Retrieve one notice') plus the scope of returned content, which distinguishes it from the list-oriented search_tenders and history-oriented get_tender_changes by implication. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The phrase 'one notice' hints that this is the single-record lookup, but the description never says when to use it versus search_tenders or get_operator_offer, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing a TED id from a search first). Usage is only implied.

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