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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It does add some context: 'FREE beta' flags cost/availability caveats, and 'provenance context' hints at response contents. No contradiction with annotations, but it adds only modest behavioral depth beyond the structured data.

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 of roughly 13 words with zero filler. It front-loads the most decision-relevant fact ('FREE beta') before the core verb-resource statement, and every phrase ('tender, value, award and provenance context') carries information.

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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the scope of returned context (tender, value, award, provenance). The main gap is differentiating this evidence variant from its basic sibling, which is absent from the description and would help an agent choose 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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains that identifier is 'a Find a Tender notice ID or OCDS procurement-process ID'. The description echoes the OCDS scope ('UK Find a Tender OCDS lookup') but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('lookup') and resource ('UK Find a Tender OCDS') and enumerates the return scope ('tender, value, award and provenance context'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling variant (uk_find_tender_lookup_basic), leaving the evidence-vs-basic distinction implicit rather than stated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions the sibling 'uk_find_tender_lookup_basic', nor does it give selection criteria such as 'use this when you need award or provenance detail' or 'use the basic variant for simple lookups'. 'FREE beta' is a status flag, not usage routing.

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