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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful context — the data source (oeffentlichevergabe.de) and CC0 licensing — which tells the agent this is public, freely reusable procurement data. However, it never explicitly declares the operation is read-only, nor does it describe lookup-failure behavior or whether id formats differ in handling.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded, plus a bracketed source/license note that genuinely earns its place for a regional procurement dataset. Zero filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of invocation but says nothing about what a notice record contains or what fields come back. Adequate, not rich, given that no output schema exists to absorb that burden.

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 single parameter is already documented as 'Notice id or OCID'. The description restates the same fact rather than adding format details, examples, or case-sensitivity rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one notice') and two accepted identifier forms (notice id or OCID). It is implicitly distinguishable from tender_search_notices (singular retrieval vs. search), though the sibling is never named. Clear and unambiguous for an agent that already has an identifier.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by notice id or OCID' signals that the caller must already have an identifier, which contrasts with the sibling search tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of tender_search_notices as the alternative for discovery, and no guidance on what happens with an invalid ID.

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