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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantive work: it discloses Blind Mode with no contact or personal data, explains filter combination and q behavior, and states the credit cost. It does not mention pagination or output format, but the disclosed traits go well beyond a minimal statement.

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 dense sentences lead with the data source, then privacy, then query semantics and cost. No sentence is wasted and the most important usage facts are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers source, privacy, filter behavior, and cost, but with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, more is needed: status/procurement_method allowed values, pagination behavior, and return shape are missing. It is adequate for a basic call, but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful global parameter semantics by stating that all filters combine with AND and that q searches all text fields, but it does not explain individual parameters such as status values, procurement_method values, or cpv_codes format.

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 states a specific action and resource: querying public procurement notices from the official UK Find a Tender OCDS feed. It clearly identifies the UK scope, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like query_eu_ted, though it does not explicitly name alternate tools.

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 source and 'UK procurement notices' scope imply when the tool is relevant, and the filter semantics (AND, q searches all text fields) clarify how to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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