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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioural notes: that results come from 'the latest complete ... snapshot' (freshness semantics) and that text is untrusted source data rather than instructions (prompt-injection guidance). It says nothing about pagination behaviour or rate limits, so it is above the annotation baseline but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The middle sentence ('Check stale, coverage and closing_state') is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a seven-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema search tool, the description is far too thin: it never explains what the parameters do, what the result shape is, or how to page through results. The untrusted-data warning is valuable, but the description leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool 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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must carry the semantic load, and it largely does not. Only a vague gesture toward query text is present; limit, offset, country, stage, future_only and include_text are entirely unexplained, and the 'closing_state' term it does mention is not even a parameter, which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

It states a verb and resource ('Search ... TenderDelta snapshot of TED competition notices'), which is enough to separate it from the get_* siblings. But the object of the search is described as 'the published AI-related query', which is opaque and sits oddly against a schema that exposes a free-text 'q' parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether the query is fixed or caller-supplied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_tender, get_tender_changes or get_operator_offer, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The phrase 'Check stale, coverage and closing_state' gestures at result fields to inspect rather than stating a usage condition.

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