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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual-source/dual-status scope and the field set of the result, but says nothing about rate limits, ordering, or error behavior; modest added value over annotations.

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, no filler: the first establishes sources and scope, the second covers filters and return fields. The most decision-relevant information (what it searches) 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0 required params, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, buyer, CPV codes, dates, value, link). It leaves pagination/ordering behavior implicit, but the schema supplies the 20-per-page detail, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including the industry alias/CPV-division convention and the defaults for status, source and currency. The description only restates the filter axes in prose, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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) plus resource (Polish public procurement notices) and names the two sources it spans (BZP national, TED EU). It also distinguishes scope as 'open calls with deadlines or awarded contracts', which separates it from the per-company siblings like get_company_public_tenders.

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 clear context on what the tool covers and enumerates the filter dimensions (industry, region, buyer city, kind, value), which tells the agent when this tool fits. It stops short of explicitly routing between this and the company-scoped tender siblings or stating exclusions.

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