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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes the 'full abstract and winners', which is modest extra context, but an output schema already exists so return contents are largely structured data; no auth scope or not-found behavior is described.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, key constraint (id), and payload summary. No padding 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 tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose and identifier source sufficiently. Minor gaps such as error/empty-result behavior are acceptable given the output schema handles returns.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the semantics (UUID, sourced from search_tenders). The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one tender by id') and scopes it as a single-item lookup, which naturally separates it from search_tenders and get_organisation_tenders. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, 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?

'By id' implies the caller must already hold a tender id, and the schema notes ids come from search_tenders, so the retrieval workflow is inferable. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion (e.g. use search_tenders when you only have criteria), leaving it implicit.

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