get_supplier_contracts

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses the bounded scan nature, inability to filter by supplier, time per page, and that response includes a coverage block. Excellent transparency about limitations and behavior.

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?

Well-structured: purpose first, then critical limitation, then parameter advice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly shorter but acceptable.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions coverage block in response. Covers all essential aspects: purpose, limitations, parameters, and response hint. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, but description adds value by explaining how parameters affect behavior (e.g., id_institucion speeds scan, max_pages trades coverage for time). Provides context beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds public contracts won by a specific supplier by name. Distinguished from siblings like get_award_report and search_procurement by focusing on supplier track record.

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?

Provides clear context: useful for building track record, but critical limitation (bounded scan) is explicitly stated. Advises relaying limitation to user and using id_institucion for better results. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but covers key usage guidance.

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