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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the data is an estimate from the award announcement, not the final contract, and clarifies the scope (only large enterprises subcontracting to SMEs). It also mentions the included contact details of the winning vendor. This goes beyond basic read/write semantics and provides context about data freshness and 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?

The description is detailed but well-structured. It starts with the core purpose and legal context, then systematically explains each mode and parameter, and ends with a concise note on data limitations. It is front-loaded with the most important information and uses clear separation of concerns. No word is wasted; every sentence adds 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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with no output schema, but it does not explicitly describe the response format or list the fields returned beyond mentioning the subcontract amount and vendor contact info. It also does not explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, though their function is intuitive. Given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema, a brief note on the return structure would make it fully complete.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to nearly every parameter. It explains q syntax (blank=AND, OR=OR, -word=exclude), region (county/city), category (engineering/property/labor), sort options (date/amount/rate), days default, and vendor full name requirement. It also describes the mode parameter's values and their effects. This is far more than the schema titles provide.

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 tool's purpose: to find subcontracting opportunities from large enterprises that won tenders, with reference to specific procurement law articles (67 and 65). It explains the data source (award announcements) and the intended audience (SMEs). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tenders or vendor_awards.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode (list, leaders, units, vendor) and explains the query syntax, filters, and sort options. It also includes a critical caveat that these are estimated values at award time, actual subcontracting may differ, and that only large-to-SME subcontracting is covered. This is clear, actionable usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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