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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result set is capped at the newest 12 tenders, fetching requires a rendering residential proxy, and each successful call costs $0.02 in USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls free. The cost and freshness-cap facts materially affect an agent's decision to call it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identification and scope, followed by a compact field list and a payment-model sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; only the field enumeration brushes against redundancy with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant, but coverage is otherwise complete: source, freshness cap, filters, and billing model are all present. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already carry examples in the schema ('water, road, solar'; 'Pakistan, Bangladesh'). The description only restates that keyword and country filtering exist without adding format, matching, or partial-match semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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+resource: Asian Development Bank procurement notices, with scope (newest 12 tenders) and the returned fields enumerated. The source (adb.org/projects/tenders) implicitly distinguishes it from energy_world_bank_procurement and energy_inter_american_dev_bank, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Says the results are 'optionally filtered by keyword and country', which hints at usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never mentions the World Bank or IDB procurement siblings an agent might reasonably confuse it with. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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