public_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the default year, the '2012 onwards' lower bound, the default sort ('value' = largest first), and that limit caps rows. It does not state read-only nature, result pagination, or what happens when filters match nothing, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states purpose and scope, followed by a compact per-argument list where each line adds real information. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly programmer-flavored but costs nothing in length.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description fully specifies the 9-parameter filter surface including units, formats, defaults and enumerated sort values. An agent has everything needed to construct a call 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 carries everything: it explains each of the 9 parameters, gives realistic example values including Portuguese terms, clarifies that buyer/supplier accept either a name or a 9-digit NIF, gives the price units (euros), and enumerates the sort modes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Portuguese public contracts') plus the data source (Portal BASE) and a scope constraint ('for one year'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling public_contracts_summary, so an agent must infer that this returns individual contracts rather than aggregates.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parameter list and query examples ('software', 'limpeza'). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling summary tool as an alternative for aggregate questions.

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