Get full details of a public tender

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (buyer, location, deadlines, etc.), mentions optional AI-generated summaries, and notes the ATLAS_API_KEY requirement for that feature. However, it doesn't address error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the API key mention.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return data, the second covers the optional feature. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what information is returned. It could be more complete by describing the response format or structure, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior given the context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the AI-generated summary feature in context, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Retrieve detailed information'), resource ('Polish public tender'), and scope ('by its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_buyer or search_tenders by focusing on full details for a single tender rather than entity-specific data or search functionality.

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 (to get full details of a specific tender by ID). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context implies this is for detailed retrieval rather than searching or getting partial data.

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