Extract Contract Value

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that amounts are returned as raw strings exactly as published and usually in PLN, which is useful. It does not mention failure behavior, empty results, or whether the extraction can be partial, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one detail sentence, and one example. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input, extraction scope, return format, and a concrete example. It omits explicit comparison with sibling tools, but that is more of a usage-guidance issue; the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for tender_id, so the description must compensate. The example call demonstrates the expected ID format and connects the parameter to a tender notice, but the description never explicitly defines tender_id or explains where such an ID comes from. This is helpful but not fully sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: extract contract/order money amounts from a tender notice full text. It also lists the exact kinds of values found (contract value, total paid, estimated value, etc.) and notes that these are not exposed by structured API fields, which distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools.

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 implies usage when structured API fields do not expose certain monetary amounts, giving the agent a decision rule. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains mostly implicit.

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