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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds only 'FREE beta' (availability) and 'selected notice fields and provenance' (output hint), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what 'provenance' means behaviorally. The added value is minimal but not contradictory.

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 description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it opens with 'FREE beta' – a marketing statement that does not serve the agent's decision-making. The core phrase 'EU TED procurement search' is front-loaded, but the rest adds little structural clarity.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details: what fields are returned, what 'provenance' means, and whether pagination or limits apply. It also fails to explain the evidence vs. basic distinction, which is essential given the sibling list. The description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly with full confidence.

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 50%: the query parameter has a description, but limit does not. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. An agent cannot infer limit's meaning or constraints beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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 clear action and resource: 'EU TED procurement search' identifies what it does. However, 'with selected notice fields and provenance' is vague and does not distinguish this from the sibling eu_ted_search_basic, which likely has a similar core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this evidence variant versus the basic variant. The sibling list includes eu_ted_search_basic, but the description does not mention it or explain the difference, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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