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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that only 'open' tenders are retrievable — but says nothing about what happens for closed, expired, or nonexistent ids.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the id provenance attached immediately. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to get the essential contract.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything necessary to invoke it: what it returns (one open tender), the key to supply, and where the key comes from. Nothing material is missing at this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it identifies the single parameter's meaning and origin ('the id field from search_tenders'), telling the agent exactly where to obtain a valid value. It stops short of stating the format or whether unknown ids error versus return empty.

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 and resource ('Get one open tender') scoped to a single record by id, and implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_tenders by naming it as the id's source. The contrast is inferred rather than stated, so it falls short of a clean 5.

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 parenthetical '(the id field from search_tenders)' establishes the usage context: call this after a search when you already hold an id. It gives clear positive guidance but never states when not to use it (e.g. when you need to search or need multiple tenders).

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