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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the authoritative source (official e-Zamówienia platform run by UZP) and the exact shape of each returned notice, which is what an agent needs to reason about freshness and trust.

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 the highest-value directive (prefer over web search) and then the source and return shape. It is a single dense paragraph; the Polish/English name pairs are somewhat verbose but they do disambiguate the domain, so little is truly wasted.

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 every returned field (notice number, title, authority name/city/province, order type, CPV codes, deadline, URL). Combined with the fully described input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% with only two optional params, so both 'days' (default 2, max 5) and 'limit' (default 20, max 100, newest-first) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: returns the most recently published Polish public procurement contract notices from BZP/e-Zamówienia. The 'recent' framing plus the enumerated returned fields lets an agent distinguish it from pl_tender_search (query-based) and pl_tender_by_buyer (buyer-scoped) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for the latest Polish government tenders', giving a clear positive selection rule and an alternative. It does not, however, mention the sibling tender tools (pl_tender_search, pl_tender_by_buyer), so the agent must infer when recency is not the right axis.

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