winner_intel

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States Pro tier requirement (authorization). Does not mention rate limits, response size, or mutation behavior, but it is clearly a read-only aggregation. Output schema covers return format, so that is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences in first paragraph plus a bulleted arg list. No fluff, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage condition, example, and parameters.

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?

Tool is simple; description covers purpose, parameters, and authorization. Output schema handles return values. Adequate for an aggregation tool with few parameters.

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 0%, but description adds explanations for all four parameters (cpv, region, year, limit) including default and max for limit. This adds value beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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?

Clearly states it provides aggregated winner statistics (top companies by contract count and total amount). The example query 'which companies win IT contracts in Occitanie in 2025?' makes purpose immediately understandable. Distinguishes from siblings (search_awards, search_tenders) by being an aggregation tool rather than a search tool.

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?

Mentions 'Requires Pro tier' (precondition) and gives a usage example. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the nature of the tool (aggregated statistics vs. individual searches) is implied.

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