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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'summary_lang attaches cached AI summaries', which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, but it doesn't describe response format, pagination, or any other runtime behavior.

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 sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then packing filter details efficiently. It avoids wordiness and gets to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter explanations.

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 doesn't mention what the response contains or any pagination details, leaving a gap for a search tool with nine parameters. It covers input semantics well but is incomplete regarding return values and result handling.

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?

With schema coverage at only 22%, the description compensates by explaining key parameters: country format (ISO alpha-3), CPV matching rules (exact 8-digit or division prefixes), deadline window, and contract value bounds, plus the summary_lang parameter. However, it leaves search, limit, and min_score undocumented in both schema and description.

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 begins with 'Search live public tender previews', providing a clear verb and resource. It also lists specific filtering capabilities, making the core function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fulltext_search, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fulltext_search or get_tender. No context about typical use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.