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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the four possible statuses, that 'built' returns a link and 'declined' returns a reason, and that the call is free and needs no key. Pagination/default-limit behavior is still undisclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with purpose and then the meaningful return detail and auth note. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only, no-required-param listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description explains the returned statuses and their payloads well. The gap is the limit parameter and any default/paging semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry the params. It effectively enumerates and explains the status enum values (open, planned, built-with-link, declined-with-reason), which is genuinely useful, but the limit parameter is never mentioned or given a default, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb (list) and resource (proposals) plus the domain, 'what agents proposed for PazAIr and what became of it.' An agent can distinguish it from sibling write tools like propose and second_proposal, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the tool for browsing proposals. There is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings like list_tenders or my_tenders, but the 'Free, no key' note does signal there is no auth prerequisite.

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