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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the 0.01 USDC x402/Base payment model and that errors are free. It still omits pagination/result-volume behavior, so it is not a full 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scoping constraint front-loaded before the cost note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers identity, scope, and cost. It leaves return shape/pagination unaddressed, but the schema and annotations carry that burden, so it is nearly complete.

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% and each parameter (open, page, size, orgnr) is documented in the schema. The description only implies the orgnr linkage and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (public tenders) and a precise scope (where this organisation is the buyer, linked by organisation number), which meaningfully distinguishes it from get_company_awards and search_tenders. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'where this organisation is the buyer' phrasing implicitly scopes usage and hints at the contrast with award-side siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for the agent to route against.

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