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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-successful-call price of 0.01 USDC via x402 on Base, and that errors are not charged. That pricing/billing disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express, though return shape and result volume are left unstated.

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 filler, and the most important identifying information (Norwegian public procurement, Doffin and TED) is front-loaded. The pricing caveat is placed second, after the agent knows what the tool is.

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 nine-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers data sources, filter axes, and billing model, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the shape of a result and whether pagination exhausts a result set, and no output schema exists to carry that.

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 every one of the nine parameters is already documented with format and pattern details in the schema. The description restates the filter categories (CPV, region, deadline, buyer) but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (search public tenders) and narrows the domain to Norwegian public procurement notices from Doffin and TED, which is far more informative than the title alone. It enumerates the filterable dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It stops short of naming the closely related sibling get_tender to explain the split, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 rather than stated: the enumerated filters (CPV, region, deadline, buyer) signal when this tool is the right one, and the cost note flags that calls are billable. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the singular get_tender sibling for fetching one known notice.

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