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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns up to 10 compact rows and sorts results by notification date descending, which helps the agent set expectations about output volume and ordering.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the resource, the filtering dimension, the result limit, and the sort order without wasting words.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is searched, how results are limited, and how they are ordered. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned fields would be ideal, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema fully documents all six parameters, including the required project_type enum and the limit cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('French public procurement awards (DECP)'), and a scoping dimension ('by project type'). This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools focused on rates, quotes, and market prices.

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?

The description clearly establishes the tool's context: searching French public procurement awards. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended use is unambiguous and no exclusion guidance is necessary.

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