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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's job is supplementary. It adds a concrete rate limit (30 requests / 10 min, 200 / day per IP) and discloses that the response carries a numeric notice_id for chaining into the voll tool — genuinely useful operational context. It does not describe pagination or truncation behaviour, which keeps it from a 5.

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 returned-field list is front-loaded and the routing/rate-limit details follow in a logical order. The five example user questions are somewhat padded, though they plausibly aid intent matching in a German-language domain.

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 compensates by enumerating the payload (title, authority contact fields, dates, CPV/NUTS, AI summaries, deliverables, risk flags, eligibility, portal URL). Combined with rate limits and the sibling hand-off for deeper data, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by restating the 'source:id' format with three concrete portal examples and by naming the exact field the value is copied from in sibling results, which reduces invocation error. It adds little else about the single parameter, so not a 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 full detail for one notice') and enumerates the returned content, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling vergabe_bekanntmachung_voll, which handles document lists, structured sections and Q&A.

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?

Tells the agent where the required uid comes from (the uid field in vergabe_suche or vergabe_liste results) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (vergabe_bekanntmachung_voll, taking notice_id, for documents/Q&A). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both explicit.

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