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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: row granularity is one line per competition regardless of field count, and completed competitions are filtered out entirely. The output-linking instruction is extra but arguably a formatting rather than behavioral fact.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the exclusion rule and the linking advice. No padding, though the final sentence is presentation guidance that sits slightly apart from the tool's retrieval semantics.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still flags the url/official_url fields an agent should surface. For a zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, this covers what an agent needs, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 100% and each of the 9 parameters is self-documented, including enum meanings for stage and contract_type. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond echoing the three stage values in prose, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely (competitions for officials of the EU institutions) and the scope (announced, open, under way), plus the output granularity ('one line per competition whatever the number of its fields'). It does not name or contrast with the sibling list_vacancies/get_competition, so an agent must infer the competitions-vs-vacancies split from the noun alone.

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?

Gives a clear negative rule ('Completed competitions are never listed'), which tells the agent when results will be absent as expected. It also prescribes behavior at presentation time (link to url and official_url). It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_competition for a single competition's detail.

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