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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: the cost model ($0.002 per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. It does not discuss data freshness or rate limits, but the pricing detail is significant.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose first, scope second, pricing third. No wasted words; each sentence adds distinct value.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to convey purpose, scope, and key behavioral traits. It does so well, though it could mention data update frequency or temporal coverage. Overall complete for a filtered data retrieval tool.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (limit and country). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'IDB project procurement contract awards from the IDB open-data datastore', enumerates returned fields, and clarifies 'Awards only; open tender notices are not in this source', differentiating from notice-oriented siblings like energy_adb_procurement_notices.

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?

Provides a clear usage boundary: awards only, no open tender notices. However, it does not name alternative tools for those notices or for other development bank procurement data (e.g., energy_world_bank_procurement), leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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