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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses caching behavior not available anywhere else: edge cache up to 6 hours, the Cache-Control: no-cache bypass to read origin, and the x-origem-cache header values (hit/miss/bypass). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 what is returned, then cost, then caching behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the header-detail sentence is dense and slightly implementation-oriented for a tool description.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description sketches the return contents (titles, types, pages, availability, up to 50) and fully explains the caching contract. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the precise record fields remain unspecified.

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 parameter is documented as 'Procurement id (from the search).' The description adds no further meaning about the id 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?

The description names a specific resource and its return contents: 'The procurement record and its documents in the collection (up to 50), with titles, types, pages and availability.' It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like get_participation, get_document, or get_document_dossier, so an agent must infer the boundary between these related fetches.

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. 'Free' and the cache semantics hint that this is the cheap read to prefer when freshness isn't required, and the schema note 'id (from the search)' implies the search-then-fetch workflow. But no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not is stated.

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