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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by specifying exactly what is returned (teaser, procedure, CPV codes, excerpt), what is excluded (full description, buyer link, documents), and duplicate handling (returns canonical copy). This is valuable behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the purpose, detail the content scope, and add a duplicate-handling edge case. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation with one parameter, the description is fully adequate. It explains what data is available, what is gated behind an account, and how duplicates are handled – nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already documents `tender_id` as the Scoutee identifier, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds that it is the `id` of a search result and that duplicates resolve to canonical form, giving extra meaning beyond the schema and linking it to the sibling tool.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public tender'), and clarifies it fetches a single notice by its Scoutee identifier. It also differentiates from the sibling search_public_tenders by implying it retrieves one result rather than searching, so an agent can distinguish them.

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 description implies when to use it (when you have a Scoutee identifier from a search result) and sets expectations about free vs. account-gated content. It does not explicitly name the sibling or provide exclusion criteria, but the context of 'by its identifier' and the sibling's search purpose make the usage clear.

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