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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned record (agency, activity, deadlines, price, winners, links) in lieu of an output schema.

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 per language, front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual duplication is justified for the Arabic Etimad domain rather than redundant padding, though the enumerations run slightly long.

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 compensates by listing the fields the call returns, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. Nothing essential for a correct single-record lookup 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('الرقم المرجعي / Etimad reference number'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reiterates that lookup is keyed on the reference number but adds no format or validation detail beyond it.

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 ('Get one tender by its Etimad reference number') and enumerates the returned fields (agency, activity, deadlines, booklet price, winners, links). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list/search siblings like search_tenders and open_tenders, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: the presence of a required reference number signals 'use this when you already have an Etimad reference'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of search_tenders as the alternative for discovery.

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