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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing concrete rate limits (30 per 10 minutes, 200 per day per IP) and by saying the original portal link is included. It does not describe error behavior for an unknown or malformed uid, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return contents before routing, prerequisites and limits. It is somewhat longer than needed because the uid format and examples are repeated verbatim from the input schema and the example user questions are slightly redundant with the usage sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape and it does so in detail, including the pointer to notice_id and the sibling that returns documents. It is nearly complete; only failure modes for an invalid uid are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the cross-portal 'source:id' semantics with per-source examples (bkm:, ted:, bund:) and the instruction to URL-encode the colon. This duplicates the schema examples somewhat rather than extending them further, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 ('Returns the details of one tender notice by its uid') and enumerates exactly what is returned (authority contacts, dates, CPV/NUTS, AI summaries, risk flags). It also distinguishes itself from get_tender_documents by naming the artifacts that sibling returns, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to single-tender questions ('its deadline, contact or scope') and gives concrete example user questions mapping to the tool. It also states the required prerequisite (uid taken from search_tenders or list_tenders results) and routes document/Q&A needs to get_tender_documents.

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