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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the auth requirement ('Requires the token edm_…') and the fact that results carry deadlines and delivery status. It omits return format/pagination behavior, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 resource definition followed by the auth requirement. No filler, no redundancy; every clause carries information.

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, non-destructive list tool with full schema coverage and annotations handling the safety profile, the description covers purpose, content of results, and the auth token. Pagination is delegated to the schema (antes_compra), and no output schema exists, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 all three parameters (id, limite, antes_compra) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 verb+resource: returns procurements that already matched an alert, plus the payload dimensions (deadlines, delivery status). The '(pull channel)' qualifier adds useful scope. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like preview_alert or list_watch_events, which an agent might confuse it with.

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?

The '(pull channel)' phrase hints that this is the polling counterpart to a push mechanism, but the description never states when to use this tool versus preview_alert, list_watch_events, or create_alert. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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