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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the description's added value is the commercial/payment model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls uncharged. That is genuinely useful operational context an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of describing rate limits or result completeness (e.g. truncation).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the scope exclusion, then the pricing caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; minor cost is that the pricing sentence interrupts the functional narrative.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters are documented in-schema. The description supplies source provenance, scope exclusion, and payment terms, leaving only minor gaps around result limits or whether rows is a hard cap.

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%, with both q (2-80 chars, Italian or English) and rows (1-10, default 5) fully documented in the schema. The description only adds 'for a search term', which merely restates the required parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb-like scope (search of Italian public procurement datasets), the exact source (ANAC open data, dati.anticorruzione.it, CKAN), and enumerates the returned fields (title, publisher, licence, last modified, resource count, dataset link). The clause 'Catalogue metadata only, not the tender records' cleanly separates it from sibling tender tools like gov_ted_eu_procurement and gov_canadabuys_tenders.

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?

Explicitly states the scope boundary ('catalogue metadata only, not the tender records'), which tells an agent when not to use it, and the pricing line clarifies the paid-call context. It does not name a specific alternative sibling to route to, so it falls short of a full 5.

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