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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the output is one row per notice with stable field names across countries and notice forms, and pricing is $0.002 per notice — a cost signal unavailable elsewhere and relevant to result sizing.

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?

Three sentences plus a price line, front-loaded with what the tool returns. Some phrasing is promotional ('clean, predictable JSON', the audience list) and could be trimmed, but nothing misleads or buries the essential information.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it does so for each notice type. Gaps remain minor: it does not say what happens when no filters are supplied or how results are ordered beyond the schema's 'newest first' on maxResults.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description still adds interpretive value by tying each notice type to the fields it returns (calls carry deadlines and estimated value; awards carry winners and awarded amount), which helps an agent choose noticeTypes and understand what minValueEur compares against.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get European public tenders and contract awards ... from TED') and enumerates the three notice families with the key fields each carries (deadlines, estimated value, winning companies, awarded amount). The 'European'/'TED' framing implicitly separates it from US-focused siblings like us_federal_awards and dod_contract_awards, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives among the 27 sibling tools. The audience sentence ('For bid teams, tender-alert services, market researchers and AI agents') implies a context but tells an agent nothing about when to pick this tool over, say, us_federal_awards or company_check.

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