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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by listing the returned fields, stating the 7-day-ago default for publishedSince, and flagging the organisation-only scope. It stops short of describing result caps or ordering, but is well above the annotation bar.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the scheduling tip. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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 appropriately enumerates return fields and notes the default lookback, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and the limit/pagination behavior, but the definition is usable as-is.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented with format and examples. The description echoes the filter axes but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Find") and resource (recent EU public procurement notices) and enumerates the filter dimensions (buyer country, CPV, keyword, notice type). No sibling tool overlaps with TED procurement data, so the scope is unambiguous.

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 concrete usage context — "Run it on a schedule with publishedSince to get new tenders" — and a scope exclusion ("Buyer organisations only, no contact persons"). It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this task, so the routing risk is low.

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