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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the payment cost, payment mechanism (x402/USDC on Base), and what the caller receives (HTTP URL, payment requirements, notice details). It also clarifies this is a paid call, which is critical behavioral context. Minor gaps like failure behavior on invalid UUID or payment errors prevent a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the critical PAID warning before explaining what the tool does and how to pay. Each of the three sentences carries necessary information without redundancy or padding.

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 reasonably covers what the tool returns (notice details, HTTP URL, payment requirements) and how to complete the payment. It does not describe the exact response format or error handling, but for a single-UUID lookup with one parameter, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

The single parameter 'id' is already fully documented in the schema as 'notice UUID', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond reiterating that the tool retrieves by UUID, so it does not substantially improve on the schema.

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 identifies this as a tool to retrieve a single procurement notice by UUID, explicitly listing the returned facets (lots, deadlines, links, winners). It is sharply distinguished from the sibling search and stats tools by its single-record retrieval scope and payment requirement.

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?

The description clearly implies usage when the agent has a specific notice UUID and needs the full details of that one notice, unlike searching or aggregating across tenders. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the paid warning and single-record wording provide sufficient context.

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