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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: credit cost per call, preview limits without an API key, and the Blind Mode restriction to organisation-level fields. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the dataset and scope, then adds operational details about Blind Mode, filter behavior, and pricing. It is appropriately sized, though 'normalized for bid intelligence' is slightly promotional rather than strictly operational.

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 complex 16-parameter query tool with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition is only partially complete. It gives useful context on cost, preview limits, Blind Mode, and filter combination, but it does not adequately explain how to use most parameters or what the returned records contain beyond broad field categories.

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?

There are 16 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions q behavior, AND-combined filters, and broad fields like buyer, country, CPV codes, values, and deadlines, but it leaves many parameters undocumented, including page, per_page, notice_type, procedure_type, contract_nature, places_of_performance, and the distinction between published and deadline dates.

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 identifies the resource and scope: contract notices and awards from TED, the official EU procurement journal, covering buyer, country, CPV codes, values, and deadlines across all member states. This distinguishes it from UK-focused sibling tools such as query_uk_tenders and query_uk_contract_awards.

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 description implies usage by situating the tool in EU procurement and bid intelligence, and it explains some filtering behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling procurement or award query tools, nor does it name exclusions or alternatives.

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