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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail — a result cap of 20 and that each result carries its platform page URL. No output schema exists, so this return-shape information is valuable, though pagination behavior is still unstated.

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-loads the core purpose, then filters, then return behavior in two tight sentences. The bilingual duplication doubles the surface length, but each half is efficient and nothing is padding.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: source domain (Etimad), filter scope, result count, and per-result URL. Missing pagination/offset behavior and any note on result ordering or empty-result handling keeps it short of a 5.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents query, region, activity and open_only (including the 'Arabic works best' hint). The description maps onto those same filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond them, and never mentions the 'limit' parameter — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('search Saudi government tenders (Etimad) by keyword') and scopes it with filters, so the agent knows exactly what domain is searched. It does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like 'search' or 'open_tenders', leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 clear context for use: keyword search with optional activity, region and open-only refinement, making it obvious this is the filtered-discovery tool rather than the single-tender lookup. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. fetching one tender by id) or naming the alternative tools.

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