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 results are paginated and carry links to official notices, which is useful context, but it omits coverage/completeness caveats (e.g. partial portal coverage, latency, auth) for an 18-parameter cross-portal search.

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 sentences: the first leads with the action, scope and filter surface; the second states the return shape. No filler, nothing buried, and the core capability is front-loaded.

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, the description needn't detail return fields, and it correctly limits itself to scope, filters and pagination. For a broad multi-portal search it is nearly complete, though a note on result freshness or source coverage would close the remaining gap.

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 all 18 parameters are already documented, including cursor semantics, CPV parent-code expansion, and status interpretation. The description only recaps the filter categories already present in the schema, adding no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (public procurement notices/tenders) and names the two source families (TED and national portals). It also lists the filter dimensions and the return shape, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_tender (single notice) and get_organisation_tenders (buyer-scoped).

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 implies usage by enumerating searchable dimensions, and the schema notes that topic searches should prefer cpvCodes plus buyerCountries. However, it never states when to choose this tool over search_organisations, get_organisation_tenders or get_tender, nor any when-not conditions. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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