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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a 0.01 USDC per-successful-call cost model via x402 on Base, and that errors are free. It also discloses the 180-day recency window, though it omits rate limits or result-volume expectations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping window before the pricing detail. Every clause carries information, with only minor density in the source/pricing clauses.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields (buyer, value, award date, other winners) and the pricing model, and annotations cover the read-only profile. It is nearly complete; absent pagination guidance is mitigated by the fully documented page/size parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, size and the mod-11-checked orgnr are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Public contracts this organisation has won'), names the data sources (TED and Doffin), the recency window (last 180 days), and the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from get_company_tenders (open opportunities) without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by the resource definition ('contracts won' vs siblings' 'tenders'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for finding open tenders. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling name alone.

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