Get notices from India's district websites

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety bar is met; the description goes well beyond with the concrete cost model (~$0.003 per notice, $0.5 spend cap per call), the backing Apify Actor, result ordering (newest first), and the language caveat on titles. Cost and spend-cap disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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, front-loaded with the resource and geographic scope, then cost and provenance. The parenthetical stacking ('about $0.003 per notice; spend per call is capped at $0.5') is dense but every clause carries useful information, so nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values are covered by an output schema and safety by annotations, so what remains for the description – source, ordering, cost, language caveat – is present. The only mild gap is that the 120-districts-per-call limit lives in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description repeats rather than extends it – it mentions states/districts and the language of titles but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema (e.g. what to do with extra_input). The schema is doing the heavy lifting here.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (tenders, recruitment and announcements from India's 748 district collector-office sites), plus the returned fields and ordering. An agent can tell this apart from generic siblings like search_tenders or search_gov_updates because the source geography and granularity are explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain scoping ('India's 748 districts ... by state and district'), and the one-call budget cap hints at cost-conscious use. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. when to prefer search_gov_updates or search_tenders instead), so selection is left to inference.

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