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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by stating the data source (National Treasury eTenders OCDS API) and listing the specific fields returned, giving the agent a concrete idea of what the tool provides beyond 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?

The description is three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state action, detail output, and provide input sourcing guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, what it returns, and how to get the input. It also references the sibling tool for input, making the tool's place in the workflow clear.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing an example ocid ('ocds-9t57fa-160595') and instructing the user to get an ocid from za_search_tenders, which aids in correct parameter selection.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('full OCDS release for a single South African government tender by its ocid'). It lists the concrete fields returned (description, tender period, documents, etc.) and distinguishes from the sibling tool za_search_tenders by explaining that ocid comes from it, making the tool's role clear.

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 description explicitly tells the user to obtain an ocid from za_search_tenders before using this tool, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to other siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for a focused single-parameter tool.

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