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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: fuzzy name matching that forgives accents, legal forms and typos, a fallback that returns candidate firms instead of erroring, and the format=markdown output mode — none of which are visible in annotations. It does not state what happens when nothing matches at all.

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 content inventory is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to convey the return shape, and the input/disambiguation guidance is front-loaded in the second sentence. The awards list is long enough to read as a run-on, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing the card's sections plus the Markdown option. The only meaningful omissions are the 'lang' parameter's effect and the empty-result case, which are minor for a single-record read tool whose annotations already signal safety.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the weakest-described parameter: it explains that 'firm' accepts a slug or a fuzzy name and what normalization is applied, and it documents 'format' (markdown returns the card as Markdown) which the schema leaves undocumented. The 'lang' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, leaving one gap.

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 concretely enumerates what the returned card contains (awards by country, value won, rank, main buyers, frameworks, co-winners, similar firms) over a stated 24-month window, so the resource and its scope are unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from list_firms by telling the agent to take the slug from there, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_market or search_tenders.

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 clearly states the input options (slug or name in any spelling) and the disambiguation path: 'when the name is unclear, returns the candidates', which tells the agent how to recover from an ambiguous lookup. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool for bulk/market-level queries.

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