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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is an estimate derived from public data, not the confidential bidder list per Procurement Act Article 34, explains the data sources and model methodology, and discloses the tier levels and backtest accuracy. This is highly transparent about what the tool does and its limitations.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the core function, then explains methodology, disclaimers, tiers, backtest, alternatives, and parameter provenance. The structure uses separators and bullets effectively, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 predictive tool with legal and methodological nuances, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, data sources, model logic, tiers, accuracy metrics, disclaimers, alternative tool, and parameter provenance. It does not have an output schema, but it describes what information is returned (profiles of bidders). This is complete for an agent to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that unit_id and job_number come from search_tenders result columns, providing provenance and integration guidance. While it doesn't fully define the parameters, the names are self-explanatory and the source hint adds value beyond the schema.

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's function: estimating likely bidders for un-awarded tenders based on historical public award records, returning up to 10 firms ranked by likelihood. It distinguishes itself from get_tender (for awarded cases) and explicitly clarifies it is not an actual bidder list, making its 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?

It explicitly states when to use (for not-yet-awarded cases) and when not (for already-awarded cases, use get_tender). It also provides tier information (history/similar/null) to set expectations, and warns against calling it 'predicting the winner'. This gives clear context and exclusions.

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