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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: that search terms or business capabilities may be transmitted to a third party (Cohere) for commodity filter selection, with a privacy pointer. Pagination specifics are absent, but the output schema covers returns.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the privacy disclosure relevant to the Cohere behavior. No filler, though 'See /privacy' is a somewhat opaque redirect rather than inline 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 annotations covering safety, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to add scope and behavior. It does both (dual-source coverage plus third-party data transmission), leaving only the sibling-routing 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 the schema already documents all five parameters including limit, source, category, keywords, and province. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 (procurement opportunities) and names both underlying sources (CanadaBuys and Alberta Purchasing Connection), which implicitly sets it apart from alberta-only siblings like search_alberta_opportunities. However, it does not distinguish itself from other overlapping siblings such as find_opportunities or find_matching_opportunities, leaving ambiguity about which one to pick.

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 mention of searching both sources 'together' implies this is the combined/cross-source option, giving implied usage guidance versus single-source siblings. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer.

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