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

With annotations providing no behavioral signals, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses paid-call behavior, that source records are not modified, that the payment-required challenge is free, that repeating after a completed paid invocation may require new payment, and that matching is conservative and partially covered. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear labeled sections for use, avoid, limitations, price, and paid-call behavior. It is longer than average, but every section adds operational detail an agent needs for a paid tool, so the length is justified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, output schema presence, and minimal annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, when not to use it, its limitations, pricing, payment side effects, and accepted networks. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying the optional project parameter to public-aid generation and taxonomy matching, and by explaining that tender matching relies on CPV codes and historical contract vocabulary. This gives operational meaning to the parameters that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Ranks actionable French public funding and open procurement opportunities for a company using its profile, project context and historical public contracts.' It also distinguishes itself from the broader procurement/fr/search tool by naming that alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections give explicit conditions and name the alternative for broad open-tender search: 'use procurement/fr/search.' It also tells the agent when not to rely on it for guarantees of eligibility or success, which is valuable decision guidance.

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