Get Tender Timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output scope (notice chain, dates, notice types) and provides an example, but it does not disclose error behavior, ordering, or any side effects; as a 'get' tool this is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentences plus a usage example. The information is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an output schema, and a read-oriented purpose, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit alternative routing, which is already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so only implicitly: the example shows '2023/BZP 00510245' and the description ties the parameter to a procurement procedure. This is useful but leaves the identifier format and meaning partly inferred.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and defines the resource as 'full notice chain... with dates and notice types', enumerating stages. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_tender.

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 the full timeline of a procedure is needed, and the example shows a valid call. However it does not state when to prefer this over get_tender or raw_request, so the selection guidance is only implicit.

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