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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behaviors: FREE access, anonymous callers receive everything except the incumbent's name and must relay withheld_reason as-is, confidence is a vocabulary not a score, and windows are never invented. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond structured 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?

The description is long but information-dense: use-case first, then parameter semantics, then output and auth caveats. No filler sentences; each paragraph earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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 six-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors, accepted value formats, output shape, and caller-specific visibility. Missing buyer and limit details are minor because their names/defaults make them self-explanatory.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining kind, jurisdiction, window_before, and q semantics. It omits buyer and limit, which are less obvious because buyer could be confused with the q field and limit's effect is only implicit in the output total.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool returns: upcoming contract expiries, planned procurements, and recurring tenders, framed as 'what may be tendered before it is.' It gives concrete user queries and distinguishes the signal category from current-tender tools, so an agent can identify the tool's job immediately.

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 gives an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' directive with realistic examples, which is strong selection guidance. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives such as find_tenders, though the phrase 'before it is tendered' implies the boundary against current tender search.

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