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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data source ('ANAC cig register') and the fact that the outcome communication date exists only 'when ANAC has recorded one,' signaling an optional field.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then lists returned fields — necessary since there is no output schema. The middle enumeration is long and run-on, but every field named is informational rather than filler, so it 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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned record fields and their conditional nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by unpacking the CIG acronym ('the unique id ANAC assigns every public contract above a minimal threshold'), which the schema does not explain. It goes slightly beyond the schema's terse example-only 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one ITALIAN public-procurement notice') and identifies the exact identifier (CIG) plus its source register ('ANAC cig'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the sibling it_tender_search, which it explicitly references.

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 final sentence gives an explicit trigger condition and names the alternative: 'Use after it_tender_search returns a CIG.' This routes the agent from search to detail without inference, matching the highest calibration bar.

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