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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: a mandatory Enterprise Data key sent as an X-API-Key header, plus the ordering guarantee (soonest end first). It stops short of saying what happens when paging past the end of the list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the semantics and the ordering rule, then the auth requirement with a reference link. Nothing is redundant, though the auth URL is dropped in rather abruptly and slightly interrupts the flow.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this covers the essentials: what is returned, in what order, and what credentials are needed. Missing only minor operational detail such as pagination limits and what 'still running' means in terms of contract status.

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%, so line, country, before and page are already fully documented in the schema. The description only gestures at the line scoping and the 'still running' filter; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific resource and scope: contracts of one line that are still running, returned in soonest-end order. The 'still running' filter and the 'next tenders to come' framing distinguish it from a plain contract list, though the sibling it contrasts with (assay_line_contracts) is never named.

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?

Implies the use case (upcoming tender opportunities, renewals upcoming) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus assay_line_contracts or assay_contract. The agent has to infer the choice from the phrase 'still running, soonest end first'.

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