Get Tender

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that full=True can return a very large htmlBody, and that the default response excludes it. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error behavior or permissions.

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: summary, parameter behavior, then examples. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most important scoping detail (by ID) 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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics, parameter behavior, and size trade-offs. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining tender_id through concrete examples and clearly documenting the full parameter's effect and default. The agent can correctly invoke the tool with either parameter combination.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full details of a tender by ID'), and gives two concrete ID formats. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tenders or get_tender_timeline, as it targets a single tender lookup by identifier.

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 makes the usage context obvious: call this when you already have a tender ID and need full details, reinforced by examples showing both required and optional parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the by-ID framing is strong enough guidance.

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