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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: result ordering, fixed page size of 50, and the exclusion of closed offers. It adds how to render results ('link to url and official_url'), though no rate limits or cursor expiry behavior is mentioned.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it is ordered, then scope exclusions, then the sibling routing, then the presentation hint. No filler or repetition.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply scope, ordering, exclusions and sibling routing — and it does all four. Nothing an agent needs to call or chain this tool is missing.

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 all 8 parameters are documented there (grade formats, cursor semantics, ISO codes, date formats), so the schema carries the load. The description only implies cursor pagination via '50 at a time' and deadline ordering via 'soonest deadline first', adding little beyond structured fields.

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+resource+'open calls' scope, plus ordering ('soonest deadline first') and page size ('50 at a time'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_competitions, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 exclusion ('Closed offers are never listed') and routes competitions to list_competitions, which is the main sibling ambiguity here. It does not say when to move from this list to get_vacancy for details, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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