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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses key behavioral traits: no API key or browser required, reliance on the public TED search API, cost of $0.02/call and settlement currency (USDC on base). It also lists the returned fields (title, buyer, country, CPV codes, deadline, notice URL), which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

The description is two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by operational constraints and pricing. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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 a read-only search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, source data, return fields, authentication constraints (none needed), and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool without additional context.

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 parameter already has a detailed description in the input schema (e.g., 'ISO 3-letter buyer-country code to AND into every query'). The tool-level description adds 'keyword or CPV code' context but does not meaningfully enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already explains.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly defines the resource ('EU public-sector tenders (TED Europa)') and the filtering options ('by keyword or CPV code, optionally filtered by buyer country'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tender tools like 'uk-public-tender-lead-alert' and 'g2b-contract-demand-radar' by specifying EU TED scope.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and its scope (EU public-sector tenders), which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently specific for an AI agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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