Find public-sector contracts (SK supplier)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (SK CRZ), return fields, and a caveat for CPV code availability, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness. This is partial 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, followed by the data source and return fields, then scope and alternatives. Every sentence contributes value with no waste.

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?

The description enumerates return fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, and includes usage context and an alternative tool. It does not cover authentication or pagination details, but the schema's offset/limit descriptions cover pagination, so overall it is fairly complete.

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% with descriptive parameter docs, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; e.g., the ico parameter's supplier role is already in the schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'public-sector contracts where the given company is the supplier'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_companies or get_company_details.

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?

It explicitly notes the SK-only scope, recommends the planned TED-search tool for broader EU procurement, and frames the use cases (B2G exposure analysis, supplier due diligence), covering when to use, when not to use, and an alternative.

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