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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: auth model (free tier or caller's API key), the notion that changes are 'observed' (polling semantics), and the returned cursor tokens used for subsequent calls.

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?

FRONT-loads purpose and payload before the operational cursor sentence; every sentence carries information. The cursor sentence packs two distinct tokens and two modes, which is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: per-lot granularity, old and new deadlines in local and UTC, notice links, and current deadlines. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that the returned next_cursor/checkpoint_cursor values map back onto the input 'cursor' parameter and that limit governs changes per page, adding meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 (observed submission-deadline changes, per lot, for a watched TED tender) and enumerates the returned payload (old/new deadline in local and UTC plus notice links). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_watched_tenders and eu_compliance_deadlines.

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?

Explains how to use the cursor for paging versus polling for new changes, which tells the agent the two consumption modes. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over siblings or what prerequisites (e.g. a watched tender) must hold, so exclusions are absent.

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