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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description focuses on what annotations cannot express: a roughly 10-searches-per-day per-IP quota with HTTP 429 + Retry-After, index staleness (100,000+ of 190,000+ notices indexed, newest only via list_tenders), and duplicate notices appearing once per portal with dedup rules by title/authority/deadline. It also enumerates the returned fields and links uid → get_tender and notice_id → get_tender_documents.

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 ranking, then coverage, dedup, limits, filters. Dense with little waste, though the five example questions are more than strictly needed and push length up.

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?

For a 12-parameter semantic search with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: corpus scope, index freshness, rate-limit failure mode, duplicate semantics, returned fields, and handoff instructions to sibling tools for full text and documents.

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 description coverage is 100% and every filter is documented in-schema with examples and enums, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a summary list of 'main filters' plus the nuance that q is a description of what the user offers or looks for — useful framing, but no per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Searches German and EU public tenders by meaning') plus the ranking mechanism (semantic relevance to a natural-language description). It also names what it is not — a filter-only lister — pointing to list_tenders, so an agent can separate it from its closest sibling without reading 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?

Gives explicit positive guidance ('requests by topic, product, service or industry') and explicit exclusions ('Filter-only listings without a topic are done by list_tenders'; newest publications via list_tenders with order_by=publication_desc). The five example user questions anchor the intended query shape concretely.

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