Get one notice

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, correctly indicating no side effects and external data mutability. The description adds value by detailing the behavioral difference between formats: summary is a curated extraction, while other formats are returned verbatim. This goes beyond what annotations offer.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the critical format differentiation. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Highly front-loaded and efficient.

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 few parameters (all described in schema), an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance of formats. It could mention the default version behavior or error handling, but the agent has sufficient information for correct invocation.

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. The description adds meaningful context for the 'format' parameter by explaining what 'summary' extracts (deadlines, lot values, suitableFor, document links) and that other formats are verbatim. This enhances agent understanding beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 fetches a single notice, uses a specific verb ('fetches'), and explains the key distinction between the 'summary' format (curated extraction of bidder-relevant fields) and other verbatim formats. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling search tools.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for retrieving a single notice after obtaining an ID from a search, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_tenders. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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