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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'FREE beta', indicating potential instability or limitations, and 'compact machine result', hinting at the output format. This adds modest context beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on error handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the free beta status and immediately states the purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately conveys the core function. However, the absence of any mention of the evidence variant means an agent may not know when to choose this basic version versus the evidence tool, leaving a gap in completeness for proper decision-making.

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 parameter 'identifier' has a clear description: 'Find a Tender notice ID or OCDS procurement-process ID.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it relies on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Normalize' and the resource 'UK Find a Tender notice/OCDS procurement process', and indicates the output is a 'compact machine result'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'uk_find_tender_lookup_evidence', which likely provides more detailed results, so it misses an opportunity to distinguish its specific role.

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 tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'uk_find_tender_lookup_evidence', but the description does not mention when to prefer the basic version over the evidence version, or vice versa. An agent has no context to choose appropriately.

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