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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-derivable behaviour with the Free-plan gating that silently omits CPV codes, lots and document links. That caveat is exactly the kind of plan-dependent degradation an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations. It loses a point only for not noting failure behaviour on an invalid or unknown id.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the payload contents come first, the id sourcing second, the plan limitation last. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, this is complete: it says what comes back, where the id comes from, and how results degrade on the Free plan. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret missing fields.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says "Tender id from search_tenders results" — the description's instruction is essentially the same information. With the schema doing all the work on a one-param tool, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no format, length or validation detail beyond it.

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 ("Get the full card of one tender") and then enumerates exactly what the card contains: status, deadline, budget, subject, lots with prices and CPV codes, and document links. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it immediately from search_tenders, which returns list-level results rather than a full card.

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?

"Use the id from search_tenders results" establishes the retrieval workflow and tells the agent where the required parameter comes from, effectively positioning this as the follow-up to a search. It stops short of explicit exclusions — nothing says when not to call it, e.g. whether a bare list view suffices — so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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