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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully declared. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — free within a daily allowance then $0.003 USDC per call via x402 — but omits pagination behavior despite a page/limit parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences with the searchable scope front-loaded and pricing appended. No wasted words, though the second sentence is arguably secondary to invocation and could be split more clearly.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all 8 params are schema-documented. The description covers the searchable surface plus cost model, leaving only pagination and alternative-tool routing unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including format hints (ISO alpha-3, YYYY-MM-DD, max 50). The description only restates these dimensions and adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema; 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 ('TED notices') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (keywords, buyer country, CPV, date, type) plus result ordering. It distinguishes the tool as a filtered search, though it never names sibling eu-tenders__notice as the single-notice alternative.

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 implies usage by listing filters but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives like eu-tenders__notice for fetching one notice. An agent must infer the boundary between searching and retrieving.

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