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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the full record returned (notice type, status, project, country, etc.), and confirms it returns the public notice URL, which goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It lists all major return fields (notice type, status, project, country, deadline, method, contact info, full notice text, URL). Without an output schema, the agent relies on the description for understanding the response, and this description covers it well.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for the 'id' parameter: it specifies that the id is from wb_procurement_search results and provides an example ('OP00457469'). This helps the agent understand the parameter's source and format.

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 'Fetch one World Bank procurement notice by its notice id', specifying the exact action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wb_procurement_search and wb_procurement_awards by its singular focus on a single notice retrieval.

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 instructs to use the notice id from wb_procurement_search results, providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its role as a detail fetcher after search.

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