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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description warns that the value is 'the ORIGINAL ASKING PRICE, not necessarily spent' and that award_value/award_currency reflect the actually awarded amount. It also discloses the interpretation line, Romanian-language content, and OCDS formatting, providing meaningful context for safe use.

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 sentence contributes: scope, return fields, important caveats, language note, and a pointer to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses formatting (backticks) to make field names and key warnings stand out.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned, field meanings, the critical caveat about asking price vs. award amount, and a clear path to get more detail. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the enumerated return fields.

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?

The single parameter `limit` is fully documented in the schema with its range (1–50) and default (20), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the resource: the most recent government procurement tenders from Moldova's MTender platform, and states the specific verb 'Returns'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling moldova_get_tender by noting it covers recent tenders rather than the full detail of one tender.

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 provides an alternative: 'Use moldova_get_tender for the full award/contract detail of one tender.' This gives the agent clear guidance on when to select this tool versus a sibling, and the 'Most recent' phrasing sets the expected scenario.

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