Get Contractor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate what data is returned, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, how missing NIPs are handled, or the effective default for include_winning_buyers. The 'Get' phrasing implies safety, but more explicit behavioral context would be better.

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 short, information-dense sentences plus a useful invocation example. Every part earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could be more complete by noting when to choose this over search_entities/get_buyer and clarifying the ambiguous 'win geography' phrase, but the essential calling context 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'nip' is clearly the contractor identifier, and include_winning_buyers is tied to optionally returning the buyers the contractor most frequently wins tenders from. It does not describe NIP format or the default-true behavior, but the schema default partially covers the latter.

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 action ('Get') and a specific resource ('contractor profile by NIP'), and names the distinctive outputs: win geography and optionally the most frequent winning buyers. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as get_buyer or search_tenders.

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 context is clear: use this to fetch a contractor profile when you have a NIP. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like search_entities or get_buyer, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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