Get Tender Offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that statistics are extracted from result notice text and warns that it works best on specific ID types, implying dependence on notice type. It does not describe error or empty-result behavior, but for a simple read-style extraction tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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: every sentence carries useful information, the main purpose is front-loaded, and the example is illustrative rather than redundant. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what kind of ID it expects, how to find that ID, and a working example. Missing failure-mode details are minor given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with a concrete example ID format ('2023/BZP 00559582') and directs the caller to obtain the correct result-notice ID via get_tender_timeline. This adds practical meaning to the bare tender_id parameter, though it stops short of an explicit formal parameter definition.

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?

Description names the operation ('Get offer statistics for a tender'), specifies the exact resource, enumerates the data returned (number of offers, lowest/highest/winning prices), and identifies the extraction source (SEKCJA V). It also distinguishes itself from generic tender retrieval by referencing result notice IDs and the get_tender_timeline workflow.

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 gives clear usage context: it works best on TenderResultNotice / can-standard / ContractPerformingNotice IDs and instructs the agent to use get_tender_timeline first to find the result notice. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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