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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the access model (anonymous, free), a concrete rate limit (30 calls/day/IP), and where the remaining balance appears in the response (the `quota` key). It also warns about data-quality edge cases in BOAMP notices and points to source_url as the fallback, which an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 short, front-loaded paragraphs: purpose, workflow position, caveat, access constraints. No filler, and each block carries distinct 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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the quota-key note and the sparse-notice caveat. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing.

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% and the schema already spells out the accepted formats (integer `id`, BOAMP `source_id` like '26-79926', TED '510250-2026', explicitly not the URL). The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 and resource ('Récupère la fiche complète d'un appel d'offres par son identifiant') and enumerates what the full record contains (description intégrale, documents, contacts, champs bruts). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming search_tenders as the tool that precedes it.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in the workflow ('À utiliser après search_tenders pour obtenir le détail'), which tells the agent when to reach for it versus the search sibling. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or fallback case, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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