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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the multi-entry edge case (amendments/re-publications return all entries) and the newest-first ordering.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The verb+resource is front-loaded, followed by the return-value summary and the edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the input source, enumerates the returned fields, and covers the multi-entry behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by stating the id comes from idb_search_notices results and listing what the returned record contains, fully reinforcing and complementing the schema's own parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one IDB procurement notice by its notice id'), and immediately anchors the input source to idb_search_notices. This differentiates it from the sibling search tool without needing to open either schema.

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 parenthetical '(from idb_search_notices results)' explicitly establishes the workflow: search first, then fetch the full record. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or naming alternatives, but for a simple fetch-with-id tool the implied usage context is clear.

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