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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that no contact occurs and no money moves, effectively signaling a safe read operation, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, freshness, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the safety boundary follows. Appropriately sized, though it spends a clause on an implicit boundary rather than parameter guidance.

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?

For a no-output-schema discovery tool, the description covers what it returns at a high level and the absence of side effects, but omits parameter semantics and any notion of result shape, leaving real gaps for the agent.

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?

Both parameters (limit, query) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains neither the query syntax nor the limit's default/range. With 2 undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Discover) and resource (live open Buyer demand from official procurement sources), which is clearer than a generic 'search'. It does distinguish itself in kind from siblings like discover_commercial_counterparties, but never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus discover_commercial_counterparties or publish_demand, and no prerequisites. The 'no automatic contact and no money movement' line is a boundary, not usage guidance.

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