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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it requires explicit authorization, stores only the returned notices, evaluates deterministically, and lists excluded behaviors. Since the annotations already cover idempotency and destructive potential, the description's additional side-effect detail is enough to be strong rather than merely adequate.

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 dense sentences and the description is front-loaded with the primary action. The negative list earns its place by preventing confusion with similar-sounding search/evaluation operations, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 omits what the agent receives after the operation: no output schema exists for details, no mention of a returned summary, evaluation result, or outcome shape. With eight parameters, no output schema, and a live-mutation side effect, this is a significant gap for correct invocation and outcome interpretation.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. The agent gets no semantic explanation for profileId, limit, from, until, or search beyond their property names; only source and authorizeLiveSearch are loosely covered by the phrase 'explicitly authorized live search of TED, BOAMP or SIMAP.'

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 names a concrete action: run one explicitly authorized live search across TED, BOAMP or SIMAP, store returned notices, and evaluate them deterministically. It also lists major non-goals (no fixtures, no model call, no dossier, no persisted matches), which strongly differentiates it from the many sibling 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 description makes clear that this is a live, explicitly authorized search and that it does not perform several side behaviors, but it never names alternative tools or states when to prefer another sibling. The authorization prerequisite is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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