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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real context by scoping the write (store only the returned notices), disclaiming fixture insertion, model invocation, dossier creation and match persistence. What is missing is rate/limit behavior on the live external source and confirmation of exactly what a replayed idempotencyKey yields.

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 tightly written sentences with the action and its scope front-loaded, followed by the exclusions. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter required-heavy mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and write scope but not what the result looks like, how the query/date window feed the search, or how the evaluation outcome is surfaced. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return contract.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: naming TED/BOAMP/SIMAP clarifies the `source` enum and 'explicitly authorized' maps to authorizeLiveSearch. It says nothing about `search`, `from`/`until` date-range semantics, `profileId`, or `limit`, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 precise verb and scope: run one explicitly authorized live search of TED, BOAMP or SIMAP, store only returned notices, and evaluate them deterministically. The negative clause (no fixtures, no model call, no dossier, no persisted matches) sharply bounds what the tool is, letting an agent separate it from siblings like helvabase_opportunities or helvabase_preview_sources.

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 one-shot, explicitly-authorized framing tells the agent the prerequisite (user authorization) and that the call is a single live search rather than a reusable/persistent flow. It lists what the tool does NOT do, which functions as a boundary, but it never names the alternative tool to reach for when the agent wants fixtures, a model evaluation, or persisted matches.

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