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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: no new analysis is triggered and the list is sourced from an existing analysis, which is essential cost/latency context given readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It does not elaborate on access credential requirements, but those are carried at 100% schema coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the no-new-analysis constraint, then the scope exclusion. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return content (conditions, exceptions, evidence by page) and scope limits. Minor gaps remain on result shape or whether results are bounded by the analyzed pages, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions are fully covered in the schema (100%), including the id source get_procurement and the access/agent credential semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level guidance of its own.

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 the specific resource (the tender's qualification list) and what it contains: literal excerpts of conditions, exceptions and evidence, keyed by page. It is clearly distinct from the dossier and analysis tools, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb and relies on 'the available analysis' being understood from context.

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 the lookup does not start another analysis, and routes other needs to the dossier ('Deadlines, proposals and the other obligations are in the dossier'). It also gives an exclusion boundary: it 'does not state what the company has', so an agent knows not to use it for company-side evidence.

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