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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds significant behavioral context: caching for 30 minutes, error handling when the service is busy (estado indicates and itens empty), free cost, and the relationship to alert creation. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is dense and front-loaded with essential information, but it is lengthy and includes tangential details like the alert preview endpoint and alert body. Every sentence has some value but could be tightened.

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?

Given the complexity (caching, error handling, alert relationship) and lack of output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers return behavior (estado, itens) and intended use. It doesn't explain the full return shape, but that's acceptable without an output schema.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions that without a CNAE it uses object terms, but that's about the tool's internal behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb+resource+scope: 'tenders with an open proposal period published in the last 7 days' in the same field/state as a given procurement. It is distinctly different from siblings like search_tenders or preview_alert, though the core action is implicit ('the tenders...') rather than a direct verb.

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 gives when to use it ('Useful when the procurement you looked up is already closed'), and names related tools (create_alert, preview_alert). It doesn't state when NOT to use it, but the context is clear.

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