Get Province Stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the three output modes and what kind of data is returned, which is useful. However, it does not specify behavior when both province and city are provided, whether arguments are mutually exclusive, or what defaults apply beyond the example-driven use cases.

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 and well-structured: one main sentence defining the tool's capabilities, followed by three minimal example invocations. Every line adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 low-complexity tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core call patterns and expected responses well. The main gaps are edge-case behavior around combining arguments and possible constraints on city/province values, but the essentials are 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 no descriptions, so the description compensates with concrete examples: province="PL12" and city="Kraków". It clarifies that province expects a code and city expects a name, and ties each parameter to a specific drill-down behavior. The province enum in the schema already provides valid values, and the description reinforces their usage.

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 tool returns tender statistics and specifies three distinct modes: full province ranking, a single province, and city drill-down. It also names the output components (ranking, top buyers, top CPV categories), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tenders and get_category_stats.

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 concrete usage guidance through examples: no arguments for the full ranking, a province code for one province, and a city name for drill-down. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the examples give an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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