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

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: value is counted once per procurement with deduplication across sources and award/contract/payment stages, tenders are excluded, and results are precomputed nightly so calls are instant. The main gap is that it doesn't say how large the 'top list' is, so an agent can't judge truncation.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: definition, deduplication rule, return shape, freshness, and alternatives. Scope and exclusions are front-loaded before the sibling routing.

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 safety covered by annotations and return fields by an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: valuation methodology, exclusion of tenders, precomputation/freshness, and the boundary of coverage with a fallback tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the year parameter including 'omit for all-time'. The description only restates optionality ('optionally for one year'), so it adds little beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 measure (deduplicated committed procurement value) against a specific dimension (CPV 2-digit division) with an optional year scope. The parenthetical naming of search_tenders for out-of-top-list divisions makes it clearly distinguishable from 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?

Gives the exact question it answers ('what does the Greek state spend the most on') and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere — search_tenders with cpv= — when a division falls outside the precomputed top list. Both the use case and the escape hatch are named.

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