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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only semantic role interpretation ('buyer = purchase history'), not behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, so it adds modest value beyond the structured fields.

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 zero waste, clearly stating the resource and the two role interpretations. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter description coverage, the description need not explain return values or parameter details. It is nearly complete for a listing tool, though it could briefly state its relationship to search_tenders for routing clarity.

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%, and the schema already documents all six parameters including the roles enum and cursor pagination. The description restates the buyer/winner meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('tenders'), and scope ('an organisation published as buyer ... or won as supplier'), so an agent can understand exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_tenders, which also returns tenders, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clarifies the two role modes (buyer = purchase history, winner = award history), which implies when each mode is useful. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this organisation-scoped tool versus search_tenders or get_tender, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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