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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the hardcoded UAH 5M floor and the reconstruction-category restriction — behavioral facts an agent could not learn from the schema. It does not mention pagination, result caps, or how the floor interacts with min_value_uah.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, scope threshold, category restriction, then the fields surfaced. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (the value floor) appears early.

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, listing the returned fields (winner, awarding organisation, value, sector, signing date, official record) is genuinely useful. But for a six-parameter, zero-required search tool it omits result-window behavior and the interaction between the built-in floor and min_value_uah, leaving real gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents sort, query, since, sector, max_results and min_value_uah; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail and, notably, leaves ambiguous whether min_value_uah overrides or stacks with the stated UAH 5M floor.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Search signed Prozorro public contracts'), pins the domain with a hard value floor (UAH 5M) and a category scope (reconstruction-related), and lists the facets exposed. It implicitly separates itself from search_tenders by specifying signed contracts rather than tenders, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the stated scope: an agent can infer this tool is for high-value, reconstruction-related signed awards. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the obvious alternatives (search_tenders, get_tender, contract_sizes_by_sector).

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