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

Adds context the annotations cannot express: OAuth authentication plus a trial or paid plan is required, and the call is asynchronous — it queues a summary, or first a document download/read. The status taxonomy discloses every possible behavior along with its follow-up, well beyond readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries operational value (UI anchor, statuses, auth). The opening sentence is slightly run-on — "queues the summary, or first the download or reading of the tender documents" needs a second pass to parse.

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 takes on the return-value burden by enumerating the status values and their meaning. Authentication and plan gating are covered; only identifier precedence is left implicit, a minor gap for a two-optional-parameter tool.

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 description adds "By tender_id or public slug," which matches the schema's indication that slug is used only when there is no tender_id. With 50% schema coverage and zero required parameters, it does not resolve whether calling with neither identifier is valid or which identifier wins if both are supplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Orders the AI summary of a tender's documentation (SWZ)") and anchors it to a UI equivalent ("Wygeneruj teraz"). It also distinguishes itself from the read-side siblings by naming get_tender and get_my_tender for retrieving an existing summary.

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 an explicit exclusion: if status is already-done, do not re-request — read via get_tender/get_my_tender. Each terminal/interim status carries the next action ("ask again in a few minutes", "no SWZ among the documents"), so an agent knows exactly when to call and when to stop.

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