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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the dataset scope and threshold (EUR 15,000+), the card granularity, and the exact headline figures and links returned, which tells the agent what a call yields before making it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long parenthetical of headline figures earns its place because there is no output schema. The single dense sentence is slightly heavy, but nothing is redundant.

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 does the work of describing return content (cards with headline figures and links). Remaining gaps are minor: no default stated for the optional filters, no note on result size or empty-result behavior.

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%; the undocumented 'kind' parameter is compensated by the description enumerating all five kinds of work, and 'one card per country and kind of work' explains what both filters do. The 'lang' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema entry already explains it affects only page links.

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 ('Lists the market cards of the Arquestra Consulting Market Radar') and immediately defines the underlying dataset: public consulting contracts in Europe from EUR 15,000 up, one card per country and kind of work. This makes it clearly distinguishable from get_market (single card) and list_firms in the sibling set.

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?

'Filter by country or kind' implies how to narrow results, and the granularity statement ('one card per country and kind of work') implies this is the browse/overview entry point. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus get_market for a specific card, nor does it state the default when no filter is supplied.

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