french_public_procurement_build_supplier_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'Build useful source queries' but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it creates persistent state, or any side effects. It does not explain what 'source queries' are or how they will be used, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 one sentence, front-loading the main action and resources. It is concise and to the point, but the phrase 'useful source queries' is somewhat vague, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (building queries) and no output schema, the description should explain what 'source queries' mean and what the tool returns. It does not, so the agent may not know the format or use of the output, leaving a gap.

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%, with 'name' and 'siret' clearly described in the schema. The description adds that the tool focuses on 'monitoring one supplier or buyer', which gives context, but it does not add detail beyond schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and a clear resource ('useful source queries for monitoring one supplier or buyer'), and it names the relevant sources (DECP, BOAMP, SIRENE). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search or fetch, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling like 'search_decp' or 'get_sources', so it could be clearer on differentiation.

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 the tool is used for monitoring a supplier or buyer, and mentions the data sources it covers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like 'search_decp' or 'get_sources'. There is no clear 'when not to use' guidance or alternative routing.

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