Get tender statistics for a CPV category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves aggregate statistics (implying read-only, non-destructive behavior) and specifies the data sources (historical BZP+TED data). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific metrics and context. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and metrics, the second specifies data sources, and the third states use cases. It is efficiently structured with zero wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, data sources, and use cases adequately, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a statistical tool with no structured output documentation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (cpv and window). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'aggregate statistics for a CPV category', listing concrete metrics (count, average/median value, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistical aggregation rather than individual entity retrieval (e.g., get_tender, get_buyer) or search operations (e.g., search_cpv).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'useful for market sizing and competitive benchmarking' based on 'historical BZP+TED data'. It implies usage for aggregated insights rather than detailed searches, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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