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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context such as a 5-result cap, 24-hour caching, and "Soft-Offer outbound is OFF," but it does not clarify read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, or what the returned notices contain.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core value proposition stated first. The final sentence about "Soft-Offer outbound" is terse and ambiguous, slightly reducing clarity despite the overall brevity.

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 simple two-parameter discovery tool, the description covers the result cap, source, and caching. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return shape, empty-result behavior, and error conditions that an agent might need.

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 query and size are already documented. The description reinforces that query can be keyword, region, or CPV and that results are capped at 5, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific retrieval action ("Free peek") and resource ("live Contracts Finder notices") with clear scope (up to 5 results for a query). It signals a limited free preview, but does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as tenders_pack.

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 "Free peek" implies this is a limited preview, suggesting use when only sample results are needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus tenders_pack, tender_score_pack, or redeem_pack, and no exclusions are stated.

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