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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that: which portals are in scope, that it scans the highest-activity organisations and reports which were scanned, and which tender fields are returned (with IST dates).

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 key routing instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') is front-loaded and the rest is information-dense. It is somewhat long, with several example queries, but each sentence earns its place by detailing scope, defaults and returned fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating tender ID, reference number, title, organisation chain, published/bid-closing/bid-opening dates and source portal. Combined with the portal and organisation semantics, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (portal enum, limit, max_orgs, organisation, closing_after, include_large_orgs) is already documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the max_orgs scanning rationale, not new syntax or format detail.

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 verb and resource (search ACTIVE Government of India tenders) and scopes it to named official GePNIC portals. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like india_cppp_latest_tenders, india_defence_tenders and india_get_tender by describing multi-portal keyword/organisation search.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives concrete query examples. It names the ordering constraint ('Use india_tender_organisations first') and explains the fallback behaviour when organisation is omitted (scan top-N orgs by active-tender count).

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