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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered and the description need not restate it. Instead it adds genuinely non-obvious context: the exact content of the response envelope and a caution that result.framework_max is a framework ceiling, not an award sum. That is interpretation guidance annotations cannot carry. It stops short of noting behavior on an invalid or unknown id.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents, followed by the one interpretive warning that matters. The enumeration is dense but every item maps to a real field an agent will encounter. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape and does so in detail. The framework_max caveat closes the most likely misreading. What remains unaddressed is failure behavior for a bad or unknown id and whether fields can be absent for tenders that have not yet been awarded.

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 the single id parameter is already documented in detail, including the 8–12 character format and the URL alternative. The description adds nothing about the id, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it is the baseline rather than an enhancement.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('One tender') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: deadlines, procedure, lots, result with winners and sums, document and notice links. That is far more specific than the title 'Ausschreibung abrufen'. It implies the single-record counterpart to search_tenders but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes a single tender id, so an agent can infer it is the follow-up to a search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_tenders, and no guidance on how to obtain the id in the first place. Adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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