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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses: 6-hourly refresh rate, top 10 results, honest null for CPV, cost per call ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet). Could add: whether results are paginated, sorting order, rate limits, or any destructive effects. Acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 focused sentences plus one cost line—every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with core action and data sources, then details return format and filters. No filler.

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 7 params with 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema requirement, the description fully covers key behavioral aspects (refresh, cost, honest null, excluded notices). Return value format is summarized adequately without needing an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying synonym expansion for 'q', honest null CPV behavior, and that cpv/region/value/deadline filters may exclude notices (tracked in excluded{}). Slightly above baseline.

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 the verb ('search'), resource ('live UK public-sector tenders'), and data sources ('Find a Tender and Contracts Finder'). Returns top 10 matching notices as plain-English briefs. Diverges from siblings that focus on companies, grants, or health, as shown in sibling-tools list.

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?

Provides clear context: indexes two portals with no signup needed, lists filter parameters explicitly. Could improve by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for non-UK tenders or non-public-sector searches) and naming specific sibling alternatives.

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