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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is tied to a Business plan and consumes one query, which is important operational context. It also explains the CIF-driven similarity behavior and says only open, in-deadline tenders are returned; annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the resource and scope before moving into filters, CIF behavior, and plan cost. It is dense but readable; the final English sentence is slightly redundant but does not materially harm conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully lists the returned fields: title, body, province, amount, deadline, CPV, and application link. Combined with the access-plan note and CIF use case, it gives an agent enough context to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description summarizes the filters (query, CPV, province, type, amount, cif) but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: searching open public tenders in Spain that are still within the bidding deadline. It names the data sources and returned fields, making the tool's purpose distinct, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_public_contracts.

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?

It gives a concrete usage scenario in Spanish: use with cif to find tenders similar to contracts a company has already won, framed as '¿a qué concursos se puede presentar esta empresa?'. It also describes the available filtering modes, but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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