Find public-sector contracts (SK supplier)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the data source (SK CRZ), return fields, and a data quality caveat ('CPV code where available'). It also honestly limits scope to SK. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but these are covered by the schema, and the tool is clearly a read-only listing.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with the core action and resource. The additional sentences about data source, scope, and use case are valuable and not redundant. It could be slightly tighter, but each sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description enumerates returned fields (contract value, buyer, signing date, subject, CPV) and provides business context. It also mentions the data source and geographic limitation, giving an agent enough context to invoke correctly. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the input ICO is the supplier, though that is strongly implied.

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 detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., ICO format, limit cap, years example). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond output expectations, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to repeat what the schema already documents.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('public-sector contracts') and relationship ('where the given company is the supplier'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is SK-only and referencing the planned TED-search tool for broader EU coverage, making its purpose unique.

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 provides clear usage guidance: for B2G exposure analysis and supplier due diligence. It also gives an explicit exclusion: for broader EU procurement signal, use the planned TED-search tool (not yet exposed), and notes the SK-only limitation, which helps an agent decide when not to choose this tool.

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