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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by enumerating the fields returned in the card, which is valuable given no output schema exists. It does not contradict the 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and identifier before the field list. The enumerated fields earn their place by substituting for an output schema. No filler.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the call returns, compensating for the absent output schema. Only the routing to search_tenders when a number is unknown 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'number' parameter is already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds a modest clarification that the number may be an EIS or platform number, slightly beyond the generic schema label, but does not specify format or validation.

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+resource (retrieve procurement details by EIS/platform number) and enumerates the returned fields (subject, customer, region, price, deadline, status, links, documents). This distinguishes it from search_tenders and tender_documents without naming them. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

Usage is implied by 'по номеру ЕИС или площадки' – the agent infers it applies when a tender identifier is already known. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to search_tenders for cases where only a query is available. Adequate but under-specified.

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