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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait — the result is capped at the first 5 — but says nothing about ordering, whether more results are reachable, or the data source's freshness beyond the 7-day window.

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?

A single short sentence with the cost and recency signal front-loaded and no filler. The 'FREE.' fragment is slightly informal but does put the most decision-relevant fact first.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essentials: source, time window, and result cap. Only ordering and the ability to get more than 5 results are left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names a specific resource (AusTender contracts) and a precise scope (published in the last 7 days, first 5 results), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling contract_search, which plausibly overlaps.

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 leading 'FREE.' implies a cost contrast with paid siblings and the 7-day window implies 'use for recent activity', but neither is stated as an explicit when-to-use rule or exclusion versus contract_search or buyer_watch.

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