french_public_procurement_search_decp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a query action without noting whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any other side effects. It does not even mention that it likely returns a list of records. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 worded sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose in under 20 words and is well-suited for quick scanning. There is no structural waste, fitting the conciseness criterion perfectly.

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 extremely minimal for a search tool with four parameters and no output schema. It omits any indication of the response format, pagination behavior, or practical usage examples. Without annotations, the agent is left guessing about request results and potential edge cases. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 75%, just below the 80% threshold where baseline would be 3. Since coverage is not high enough, the description must compensate by explaining parameters or usage patterns, but it adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter names and types. The 'limit' parameter lacks a description entirely, and the tool description does not clarify search semantics (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy matching, combination logic).

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 action (query) and the specific resource (consolidated DECP public-procurement dataset on data.economie.gouv.fr). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_datasets' or 'fetch_source_excerpt', though the name is reasonably self-explanatory. This is a minor gap in 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over siblings. For a search tool with multiple similar options, this is a significant omission.

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