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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the burden on the description is lower. The description adds relevant behavioral context beyond those annotations: results come from a weekly-refreshed feed, are ordered newest first, and represent a snapshot of recent releases rather than a live or exhaustive search. This gives the agent an accurate sense of data freshness and scope.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the language is mostly efficient, but the long parenthetical list of countries largely duplicates information already present in the country parameter's enum. The final sentence also somewhat restates the first sentence's purpose, though it adds the weekly-refresh context. It is reasonably concise but not tightly optimized.

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 filtered-list tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description plus schema provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It names the data source, scope, refresh cadence, sorting, and filtering options. It does not describe the exact output structure, but that is not essential given the tool's straightforward nature.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a little value by mapping 'adjust the lookback window' to the days parameter and 'filter to one country' to the country parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's explanations, especially for the limit parameter.

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 tool as returning the most recently published government procurement releases, sorted newest first, with optional country and lookback-window filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_tender_search by framing it as the 'what public tenders just came out' view rather than a general search. The only minor blemish is that the country list omits Argentina while the schema includes it, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need recently published tenders or contract awards across OCDS publishers, with optional country and time-window filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is concrete and easy to apply.

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