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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating the substantive record contents (buyer/supplier with NIF tax numbers, CPV codes, procedure type, dates, legal regime), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and input provenance, the second packs the return fields into a single scannable list. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the field enumeration is the agent's only view of what comes back, and it is thorough. Combined with annotations that fully cover the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that idcontrato is the contract id returned by pt_contract_search. The description only restates this, adding no format, validation, or error semantics 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 (Fetch), resource (one Portuguese awarded contract), and the exact identifier key (idcontrato). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling pt_contract_search, which produces the id rather than consuming it.

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 parenthetical "(returned from pt_contract_search)" tells the agent exactly where the input comes from and implies the search-then-detail workflow. It gives clear usage context but states no explicit exclusion or failure case (e.g. what happens with an unknown id).

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