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 and the description is not required to restate it. The only added behavioral context is that results yield ids that feed get_organisation_tenders; nothing is said about result volume, pagination behavior, or matching semantics for the name filter.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the follow-up routing hint. Every sentence 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, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: how the returned id is consumed. Pagination and degree of name matching remain implicit, but for a simple search tool the definition is nearly complete.

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% — name, limit, cursor and countries are all documented in the schema. The description's 'by name and country' merely restates two of those parameters without adding format, matching, or normalization detail, 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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('buyers and suppliers'), and clarifies the scope with filter facets ('by name and country'). It is clearly distinguishable from search_tenders and search_cpv_codes by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

It provides a concrete next-step ('Use the returned id with get_organisation_tenders'), which is genuine usage guidance for downstream work. However, it never says when to pick this tool over search_tenders, nor any when-not conditions, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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