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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral context: data source (OpenProcurement public feed), language (Ukrainian titles), and returned fields. No contradictions. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover safety.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states main function, second lists returned data, third gives usage advice. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, data format, language, and when to use it. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter 'limit' with 100% schema coverage (type, default, range). Description does not add new meaning beyond schema, which already fully documents the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns 'most recently updated tenders' from Ukraine's ProZorro system, listing specific fields returned (id, tenderID, title, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'prozorro_get_tender' by specifying scope (browsing recent tenders vs. specific tender).

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 states 'Use for browsing current Ukrainian public tenders; for a specific tender use prozorro_get_tender.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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