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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: live/keyless/no stored data, the two-strategy resolution path (recently-modified scan then a date-encoded forward scan), the exact failure contract (detail_available:false, never a crash, never an empty object), and the meaning of the source field.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause carries information. It is a dense single paragraph, though, and internal artifacts like '(fleet #2762/#2768)' and '(fleet #3244)' are pure noise that lengthens the sentence chain without helping an agent act.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself, and it does: it explains that source reports which resolution path answered and that detail_available:false means only the search-index summary exists. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the id format, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by distinguishing the two id kinds behaviorally — internal 32-hex resolves immediately, human tenderID triggers the fallback scans — which tells the agent which form is cheap and which is expensive.

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+resource (detail for a historical ProZorro tender) and immediately frames the differentiator: a tender that prozorro_get_tender can't resolve from a human tenderID. It explicitly separates itself from both prozorro_get_tender and prozorro_search_tenders, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit selection condition — use this when prozorro_get_tender returns detail_available:false for a tenderID found via prozorro_search_tenders date-range browsing — and states that an internal 32-hex id ALWAYS resolves here regardless of age. Alternatives and their boundaries are named, not implied.

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