Software Prices France

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the accent-insensitive filtering behavior, which is useful beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose anything else like return format or pagination.

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?

One sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and data source, then adding the filter detail. Perfectly concise for a tool with a single optional parameter.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations that already describe the safety profile, the description is complete enough. It covers the resource, data source, and filter behavior, leaving nothing critical missing for a simple lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'profile' parameter as a substring filter. The description adds 'accent-insensitive' detail, but the core semantics are in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Reference freelance day rates (Free-Work)', with an optional filter on profile. It names the data source (Free-Work) which helps distinguish from sibling pricing tools, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 mentions 'optional accent-insensitive profile filter' which implies usage for filtering by profile, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. Since it's a reference tool among pricing tools, context is implied but not explicit.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the phrase 'cautious interpretation,' which hints at conservative output but is vague and not explained further. It does not contradict annotations but adds limited extra context.

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, short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the caution phrase, though it remains appropriately terse.

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?

The description implies the output is a percentile but doesn't explicitly state the return format or value, and there is no output schema. The 'cautious interpretation' is ambiguous, leaving an agent uncertain about the nature of the result. Despite annotations covering safety, the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 all three parameters are already documented with meaning (amount_eur is a positive number, project_type is a key, nature has an enum with descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it rests at the baseline.

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 action (locate an amount) on a specific resource (public award distribution) and the outcome (percentile), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like price_statistics or private_market_prices. The verb 'locate' and explicit scope leave 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned. The intended usage is implied by the purpose (e.g., comparing a quote to public awards), but there are no stated conditions or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a small behavioral cue by indicating the data is 'published' statistics, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or any quirks. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main output type and then scopes it by required and optional parameters. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool, the description covers the core purpose and output type, but it does not explain how to choose this over sibling price tools or what a valid project_type looks like. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned structure would improve completeness.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes project_type and nature without adding format details, valid values for project_type, or interaction effects between the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns statistical aggregates (medians, quartiles, tension indices) for a given project type and optional nature. It identifies the resource and output type, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the statistical focus is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like daily_rates, private_market_prices, or sources_and_method. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the meaning of the optional nature parameter in decision-making. The only implied context is that it fits price-statistics needs.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the row limit ('Max 10 rows') and by indicating the response includes source, URL, date, and quote. It does not discuss pagination, but for a simple read tool this is a minor gap.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core subject and includes the row limit as a separate concise note.

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 optional-filter read tool, the description plus schema covers the returned data fields, the row cap, and the filter semantics. The absence of an output schema makes the explicit field list valuable. It does not address sibling selection, but that gap is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 only parameter, project_type, is fully documented in the schema with its allowed values and omit behavior. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as private-market figures and vendor list prices, and specifies the accompanying metadata (source, URL, date, quote). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is still clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as daily_rates, price_statistics, or search_public_contracts. The only usage hint is the optional project_type filter behavior, which is more parameter semantics than tool-selection 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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns up to 10 compact rows and sorts results by notification date descending, which helps the agent set expectations about output volume and ordering.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the resource, the filtering dimension, the result limit, and the sort order without wasting words.

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 a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is searched, how results are limited, and how they are ordered. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned fields would be ideal, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to 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%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters, including the required project_type enum and the limit cap. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('French public procurement awards (DECP)'), and a scoping dimension ('by project type'). This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools focused on rates, quotes, and market prices.

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 clearly establishes the tool's context: searching French public procurement awards. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that the intended use is unambiguous and no exclusion guidance is necessary.

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. The description adds useful context about the tool's output content, particularly 'known limits,' which informs the agent about potential caveats. 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, concise sentence that front-loads the key content ('Dataset sources'). It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could be structured as a bullet list for easier scanning, but it is not overly verbose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the main areas: sources, filters, publication floors, known limits, and a repository link. It does not describe the return format, but that is less critical given the simple nature of the tool and annotations covering safety.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by describing what the tool returns, which is more relevant than parameter details.

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 indicates this tool provides dataset metadata: sources, filters, publication floors, known limits, and a GitHub repo link. It is distinct from sibling data-retrieval tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' to make the action 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this informational tool is preferable. Agents must infer its purpose from the content list.

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