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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: access model (anonymous, rate-limited, free AndesPass key raises the limit), the specific error code 'not_found' and its remedy, and a preview of the returned payload including agent_guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the decision context and the required input, then the return contents, then error handling and access notes. Dense but every sentence carries information; the return-value enumeration is slightly long given an output schema exists.

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 detail lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, return shape, error recovery, and access constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameter meaning. It explains tender_id well (source and error behavior) but says nothing about preferred_language or include_original_evidence, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource ('get_tender_detail' / tender detail) and frames its role relative to search_tenders by requiring a tender_id from that tool. An agent can distinguish it from search_tenders and the other siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before deciding whether a tender is worth pursuing') and where the input comes from ('Pass a tender_id from search_tenders'). It also gives a recovery path for the not_found case, pointing back to search_tenders with the tender name.

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