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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the tool is free, results are edge-cached up to 6 hours, `Cache-Control: no-cache` forces an origin read, and `x-origem-cache` reports hit/miss/bypass. This is exactly the kind of staleness and cost disclosure that helps an agent call it correctly.

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 resource definition is front-loaded, followed by legal-context and cache details. It is efficiently sized, though the header-level cache mechanics push slightly past what's strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return content, which it does (published proposal end and challenge deadline). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only error/edge behavior left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented as the procurement id from search. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail 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 names a specific resource (the procurement's deadlines) and enumerates its content (end of proposals, last day to challenge). It implicitly contrasts with the broader `get_procurement`, but never names a sibling to differentiate itself 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 context is implied by the cost note ("Free") and the cache behavior, which hints at when a fresh read is worth forcing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative (e.g., get_procurement) or prerequisite guidance.

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