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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real substance by disclosing case-insensitive substring matching, the publish-date window scoping, and the compact shaped return fields (title, order type, CPV, deadline, URL). It omits the 7-day scan cap and stopping behavior, which live only in the schema.

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-loaded with what the tool does and the source, then the matching semantics, then return shape, then the use case—each clause earns its place. It is dense and long-sentenced but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, plus it explains the daily-fetch scan model. Coverage is solid for a read-only lookup, though pagination/truncation signals beyond 'limit' are only in the schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented at baseline 3. The description reinforces the buyer matching mode (case-insensitive substring) and notes the publish-date window, but adds no format or default details beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('POLISH government tenders published by a specific contracting authority'), names the authoritative source (e-Zamówienia / BZP), and the buyer-scoped framing clearly separates it from the sibling pl_tender_search and pl_tender_recent.

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 closing clause 'useful for "what is <city/agency> currently buying"' gives a concrete usage scenario, and the buyer-scoped framing implies the alternative (broad search) exists. It never explicitly names pl_tender_search or states when-not to use this, so no exclusion guidance.

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