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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call consumes no quota and an identifier pointing at a duplicate returns the canonical copy. These details go beyond what the annotations and schema convey, giving the agent expectations about cost and data consistency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences each carry a distinct piece of information: the resource scope, the identifier provenance, the quota behavior, and duplicate resolution. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: it explains the identifier source, quota impact, and duplicate handling. An agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents tender_id as 'Scoutee identifier of the notice,' so baseline is 3 with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context by specifying that this is the `id` from a search result and that the response has the same shape as a search result. This clarifies the provenance and expected correspondence between parameter and output.

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 title 'Read one public tender' plus the opening phrase 'One notice in full' clearly identifies a single-resource retrieval operation. The phrase 'by its Scoutee identifier (the `id` of a search result)' ties it to search results and distinguishes it from a search operation. It falls just short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool or state 'use this instead of search_tenders.'

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 clearly implies the correct workflow: obtain an id from a search result, then call this tool to get the full notice. It also signals a practical advantage ('Consumes no quota') that would favor this tool when retrieving a single full notice. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer search_tenders or exclude when this tool should not be used.

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