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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering semantics ('in change order'), the inclusion of changed fields, and cursor-based continuation, but does not mention the default seven-day window, rate limits, or completeness guarantees.

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 with no filler; the change types, ordering, and pagination mechanism are all stated compactly. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

The presence of an output schema and full annotations reduces the burden, but for a polling/change-feed tool the description omits the default seven-day lookback and offers no routing versus sibling search tools. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: 'since' and 'cursor' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'locale' carry no descriptions. The description restates the continuation-cursor concept but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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States a specific verb (List) and resource (public tender changes) and scopes it to 'new, amended and withdrawn published notices in change order'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_public_tenders or list_public_tender_sources, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this change feed over search_public_tenders for polling updates, nor when to resume via cursor instead of since. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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