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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of the returned notice (requirements, bid bond, submission details, link) but does not describe error handling, response format, or potential absence of a tender, which are secondary given the read-only nature.

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?

A single, dense sentence that leads with the core purpose ('full text of a single tender notice') and immediately follows with the input source and the expected contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to call it correctly: it names the input source, the resource type, and what the return includes. It doesn't cover error scenarios or the original-notice link format, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100%, and the description reinforces that slug comes from list_tenders without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema. It confirms the parameter's role but doesn't specify format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (get), resource (single tender notice), source (BinaSmart), and input (slug from list_tenders). It enumerates contents, distinguishing it from list_tenders and other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly ties the slug to list_tenders, signaling the typical workflow of listing first then fetching a single item. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple getter.

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