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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the default time window and the 'PRO' (subscriber) tier implication, which pairs with the access_token param, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what the response looks like.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the filter semantics. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but conveys a tier requirement; otherwise there is no wasted text.

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 4-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the core filtering behavior but omits return shape, result volume, and any subscriber/auth constraints beyond the word 'PRO'.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented, including the 24h default for 'since'. The description adds only that the profile is a keyword profile; it does not explain the undocumented 'profile' array's expected values or behavior.

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 resource and filter: tenders published since a given date, scoped to a keyword profile, with the default window named. The 'since' filter implicitly separates it from closing_soon and tender_match, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Daily check' hints at the intended cadence (polling for new tenders), which is useful context for choosing this over the other tender tools. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the cases this tool doesn't cover.

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