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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the credit cost. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Search' implies it), what permissions or authentication are required, how results are paginated, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The cost note is compact and directly relevant to invocation decisions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters whose schema descriptions are uninformative, the description should do more. It omits result format, pagination behavior, date-window semantics, and any guidance on parameter interaction, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are nearly meaningless ('number', 'string, required'). The description adds no meaning about what query searches, what units daysBack uses, or what limit controls.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Search), resource (EU public procurement notices), source (TED), and method (full text), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools, but those cover unrelated domains (SEC filings and World Bank), making confusion unlikely.

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 this is the tool for full-text searches of EU procurement notices, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which to prefer alternatives, and no mention of how daysBack or limit should shape usage. The agent must infer all invocation context.

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