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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds interpretive scope beyond that – it explicitly disclaims that results do not predict awards or allege fraud – which usefully bounds how an agent should frame output. It does not mention rate limits or result size caps.

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 tight sentences: purpose and the two signals front-loaded, filters second, boundary disclaimer last. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the name or 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?

For a 7-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, signal semantics, filters, and scope caveats. It omits any note on the paginated return shape, but the page/limit parameters are self-documenting in the schema.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the terse schema text by giving semantic meaning to the signal enum values (renewal = reported contract end dates in window; zero_bid = awards with zero received submissions). The country/CPV filters are also called out at the semantic level.

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 (Find) and resource (traceable EU procurement opportunities from official TED notices), then pins down the two exact usage modes: renewal (contracts with reported end dates in a window) and zero_bid (awards reporting zero submissions). An agent can distinguish this signal-finder from a plain notice search without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly explains what each of the two signals means and the condition that selects it, plus which filters apply (buyer country, CPV). It does not name or route against the sibling ted_search_notices, so an agent must infer the boundary between a signal radar and a general notice search.

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