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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes and warns about the irreversibility of bid prices, providing consequential context beyond a simple retrieval statement. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly state that it is read-only, though these are likely implied by its retrieval nature.

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 longer than necessary, with repetitive emphasis on the importance of award history and the consequences of mispriced bids. While it is front-loaded with the core function and structured clearly, redundant warnings could be trimmed to improve conciseness without losing informational value.

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's two-mode design, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use each mode, and the recommended workflow. It leverages the output schema and parameter descriptions to avoid duplicating return format or field details, making it complete for the typical use case. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit comparison with the sibling tool, but that is not essential.

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 input schema already describes all five parameters, and the description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the two modes but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves tender intelligence including award history and daily digest.' It clearly explains the two modes and positions the tool for bid/no-bid decisions, distinguishing it from generic tender search by focusing on competitive context. This is non-tautological and highly informative.

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 explicitly states when to invoke the tool: 'Call this BEFORE your agent bids on any contract' and 'Use this when your agent has identified a specific tender and needs competitive context.' It also gives a direct command, 'Do not bid without running AWARD_HISTORY first,' which is clear and actionable, even though it doesn't name the sibling tool as an alternative.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (BID/INVESTIGATE/SKIP verdict, score, deadline, etc.), warns about non-recoverable deadlines, and explains the consequence of skipping this step. However, it omits that the AI fit score only applies when company_profile is provided—a meaningful behavioral nuance. The warning and workflow guidance earn a 4, but the scoring dependency keeps it from a 5.

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 longer than typical but well-structured: purpose → usage guidance → output summary → urgency context → next step. Each sentence adds operational value, though it is slightly wordy. It earns a 4 for being front-loaded and purposeful, not a 5 because some redundancy exists (e.g., 'before committing resources' appears twice).

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's complexity (6 params, multi-source search, scoring logic, output schema present), the description covers the essential workflow: what it does, when to use, key outputs, and next step. The main gap is the unstated condition that scoring only occurs with company_profile, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions 'company capabilities' in a workflow context but does not explain individual parameters. The schema's own descriptions are thorough, so the description earns a baseline 3 without adding extra value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Searches active government tenders across UK, EU, and US.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool by explaining that this is the discovery step ('starting a procurement discovery run') and that get_tender_intelligence is the follow-up. This is a textbook example of purpose clarity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this BEFORE your agent allocates proposal resources... at the moment a keyword or sector is known and no bid decision has been made.' It also names an explicit alternative/next step: 'Call get_tender_intelligence with mode=AWARD_HISTORY next for any tender scored BID or INVESTIGATE.' This exceeds the bar for usage guidance.

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