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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that files themselves are not returned and must be fetched via procedure_room_url/detail_url, explains assistant_ready and documents[].download_status semantics, and gives rate limits shared with get_tender. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

What the tool returns is front-loaded, then intent, then caveats and limits. It is dense and fairly long, but nearly every sentence carries operational value; minor tightening of the example-question list would make it a 5.

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, and the description compensates fully: it enumerates the returned sections, explains the assistant_ready gate and every download_status value, and notes that files are not included. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the schema already documents that notice_id is numeric, not the string uid, and where to find it. The description restates that mapping but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3).

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Returns the complete record of one tender') and explicitly frames it as a superset of get_tender ('all fields of get_tender plus AI-structured sections...'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling at a glance.

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?

It names the triggering user intents (which documents a tender has, structured summary, Q&A) and backs them with example questions. It does not state explicit exclusions, e.g. when to prefer get_tender for a plain metadata lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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