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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds scope the annotations cannot: the four covered jurisdictions and the fact that results describe historical public-procurement awards with buyer relationships. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the only remaining gap.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the dataset contains, the second delivers the one operational instruction. No filler or repetition of schema fields. Could be marginally sharper by folding the localization hint into the first sentence.

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 correctly spends its words explaining the shape of the return (what was sold, how often, for how much, main buyers) and the language of the input. Annotations cover the safety profile. Only the `limit` parameter and result-count behavior are left unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully constrains `q` to Spanish-language procurement terms and its examples imply that the query should be a product/service noun. The `country` enum is implicitly covered by listing the four countries, but `limit` is never addressed and no format/syntax detail is given for `q`.

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 names a concrete resource — companies that have sold goods/services to the governments of GT, HN, DO, PA — and specifies the data returned (what they sold, frequency, amounts, buyers). It is clearly distinct from neighboring search tools, though it never names the closest sibling (find_certified_companies). Framed as a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the intended action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives actionable query-authoring guidance ('Search in Spanish') with three concrete example queries, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to use this tool versus procurement_network, find_certified_companies, or similar_awards, so routing must be inferred from the data description.

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