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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the max 31-day range and date format, and 'PRO' hints at subscription access, but it omits auth/access_token requirements, result limits, pagination, and output behavior.

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?

The description is a single terse sentence with the date-range constraint front-loaded. However, 'PRO.' is cryptic and the sentence is arguably too compressed for a tool with no annotations.

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 search tool, the invocation basics are present: required dates, date format, max span, and optional keyword. But with no annotations and no output schema, missing auth, result format, pagination, and sibling routing leave it only minimally complete.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates for from/to by specifying YYYY-MM-DD and a max 31-day span, and it marks keyword as optional. It does not define keyword matching fields, though the schema does describe access_token.

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?

The description identifies the resource and operation: AusTender contracts within a date range with an optional keyword. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings buyer_watch or recent_contracts, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 description states the date range and optional keyword but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as recent_contracts or buyer_watch. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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