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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Anonymous and read-only' largely restates structured data. The description does add useful behavior beyond the annotations by enumerating what is returned ('latest notice versions', 'source caveats'), but omits rate limits, error behavior, and freshness windows.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; the return-field list is long but informative rather than filler. Slight trimming possible but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns (titles, buyers, countries, CPV codes, URLs, pagination metadata, caveats) and covers the safety profile via annotations. It is nearly complete for a search tool, lacking only query-syntax fallback behavior and result-freshness detail.

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 already documents page, limit, and the expert query syntax with an example. The description's 'bounded expert query' and 'pagination metadata' add only marginal meaning beyond that 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 and resource ('Search the official EU Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) corpus') and names the query style. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling ted_opportunity_radar, which also covers EU tender data.

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 phrase 'bounded expert query' hints at the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to the obvious alternative (ted_opportunity_radar or load_tender_fraud_shield). The agent must infer which TED tool to pick.

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