Hae yhden hankinnan tiedot (Hilma)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's safety burden is low. It usefully adds that the tool returns a single notice with comprehensive fields, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the search term matches nothing or multiple notices.

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 sentences with no filler: the first explains the return value, the second gives the input requirement and the relationship to the sibling tool. Every clause earns its place and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers input, output fields, and sibling positioning. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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%, and the schema already documents both parameters with an example for hakusana and the meaning of vain_aktiiviset. The description lightly restates the input instruction but adds no semantic value 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 uses a specific verb ('Palauttaa') and resource ('yhden Hilma-hankintailmoituksen') and enumerates the returned data fields, so the purpose is unmistakable. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list search by positioning itself as the complement for retrieving one notice's full details.

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?

'Anna hakusana tai ilmoitusnumero' gives a direct invocation instruction, and 'Täydentää hae_julkiset_hankinnat_hilma -listahakua' clearly establishes this tool as the follow-up to a list search. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the sibling relationship is clear enough for selection.

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