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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the returned field list, the caveat that 'source coverage and filing language vary', and a cost disclosure ($0.003). The cost and coverage caveat are the kind of operational detail that isn't in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the return fields and one caveat-plus-cost sentence. Two sentences carry the payload with no filler; the field enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by substituting for a missing output 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing return fields. It also discloses cost and a coverage/language caveat. The main gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 67%: 'q' and 'country' are described in the schema, while 'limit' is not. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond restating the search intent, so the schema does most of the work. A baseline 3 is appropriate for moderate coverage with no extra description-side detail.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (current notices in TED, the EU official procurement database) and enumerates the returned fields (buyer, title, CPV codes, deadline, source link). No sibling tool covers EU procurement, so this is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 names intended consumers ('sales-lead and market-intelligence agents'), which implies context, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. Since no sibling overlaps the tender domain, the omission costs little, but the guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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