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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.10 USDC per call), the policy on CPV codes ('we report the register, we never guess'), and the return structure. No side effects or destructive behavior is relevant as it is a read operation. However, it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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 moderately concise for the amount of information it conveys (fields, cost, policy). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some could be trimmed, but it is overall well-structured and readable.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return fields in detail, mentions cost and a data handling caveat. It does not cover error scenarios or rate limits, but it is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes the 'ocid' parameter with pattern and example (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating 'Exactly as returned by /v1/tenders/search', which provides context on how to obtain the correct OCID, going beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it provides a 'full agent-ready dossier' for one tender, listing the structured fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'uk_tenders_search' by emphasizing 'one tender' vs search results, and the detail level is high.

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 implicitly indicates use when a full dossier on a single tender is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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