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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: temporal coverage begins in 2023, queries must be in Spanish, and results include computed aggregates (median/min/max, most frequent winners). It does not mention pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, why to use it, how to query. The purpose and payload are front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 takes on the job of describing returns and does so thoroughly, plus it states temporal and language scope. Minor gaps remain around country selection/default and result limiting, but an agent can call it correctly.

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 only 20% (just item_class), so the description must carry the load. It does compensate for q by supplying Spanish query examples and implies the since default (2023 on), but country (GT/HN/DO/PA), limit, and the meaning of item_class codes are left unexplained.

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 specific resource (past public-procurement awards since 2023 for an item or service) and enumerates exactly what comes back: winner, agency, date, specification, quantity, unit price, median/min/max unit price and frequent winners. It is clear and concrete, though it never names a sibling (e.g. search_prices) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Use it to price an open tender against previous ones" gives a clear selection context, and the instruction to search in Spanish with worked examples is actionable. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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