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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: tender_value is the original asking price not money spent, the `interpretation` line explains whether value was spent, the award shape is explained including null when no award occurred, and the full awards history is returned. This is strong added transparency, though it does not cover error cases or exact output formatting.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it states the scope, enumerates returned fields, clarifies the misleading tender_value semantics, explains the award structure, and routes the agent to source tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It enumerates the returned fields, explains nuanced semantics, describes the award object behavior, and tells the agent how to obtain a valid ocid. There is no missing information that would block correct selection or invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ocid. The description largely restates the schema by mentioning 'OCDS contracting id' and the example. It adds the useful contextual point that ocids come from companion tools, but that is more usage routing than new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('get'), resource type ('single Moldova (MTender) government procurement tender'), and the key needed ('OCDS contracting id'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list/search tools by explaining that ocids come from moldova_recent_tenders or moldova_search_tenders.

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 description explicitly tells the agent where to get an ocid, naming both sibling tools as sources: 'Get an ocid from moldova_recent_tenders or moldova_search_tenders.' This gives clear context and a prerequisite, though it does not formally state when-not-to-use this tool or list alternative detail tools.

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