AI-TENDER — open procurements of Belarus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavior: 'A closed or unknown id returns found=false' and the format of the id. This exceeds the annotation coverage with useful context about edge cases.

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 fluff. The purpose, id format, returned fields, and edge-case behavior are all front-loaded in a compact manner. The Russian phrase 'Карточка закупки' adds a small redundancy but does not harm conciseness.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description covers the id format, what the response contains (customer, deadline, price, etc.), and the behavior for closed/unknown ids. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, nothing essential is missing.

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 provides only a type and no description for 'id'. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact format ('<source>:<number>') with a concrete example ('goszakupki:3653566'). This is essential information that the schema lacks, making the parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one open procurement'), and gives the id format with an example. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_tenders (which implies searching) and list_regions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for fetching a single procurement by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_tenders. It does mention the found=false behavior for closed or unknown ids, which gives some context, but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it clarifies the output is a count per region, but does not disclose pagination, data freshness, or other runtime behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence (plus a bilingual duplicate) with zero waste. The core information is front-loaded: what the tool lists and what it reports. Nothing extraneous.

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 parameterless list tool with a clear purpose and no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what is returned: regions of Belarus with the number of open procurements. An agent can call it correctly without further context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description is sufficient in this regard.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (regions of Belarus with open procurement counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: get_tender fetches a single tender, search_tenders searches tenders, while this tool returns an aggregate regional view. No ambiguity.

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 usage is implied by the purpose: if you need regional aggregated counts, use this tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_tenders or get_tender, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions. The guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output fields per item (title, customer, deadline, price, procedure, source platform link, AI-TENDER card), ordering by deadline, and the constraint that only open procurements are returned. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 efficient: a purpose sentence, an output detail sentence, an ordering sentence, and a Russian translation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The Russian translation adds some redundancy for English-only agents but is not detrimental. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what is searched, what is returned, and how results are ordered. It doesn't mention pagination or default limit behavior, but the limit parameter is present in the schema. The region reference to list_regions is in the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to call 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 67% (query and region have descriptions; limit does not). The description clarifies query semantics by specifying it can be words in title/customer or a 9-digit UNP, which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Words from the title or customer, or customer UNP'. It also mentions 'optional region' but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema's reference to list_regions. The limit parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the tool does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the verb 'search' and the resource 'open public procurements of Belarus', explicitly defining 'open' as 'submission deadline not passed'. It lists the searchable fields (title, customer name, UNP, region) which distinguishes it from siblings like get_tender (specific tender retrieval) and list_regions (region enumeration). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: searching open procurements with optional region filtering. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus retrieving a single tender or listing regions. There is no misleading guidance.

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