find_procurement_office

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: the office list is large (~1 MB), fetch-once and client-side filtering, and the returned fields (id, type, linked institution id). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with a use_case tag, then a clear function statement and two additional useful details (performance, return fields). Every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy between the use_case and first sentence, but it is efficient overall.

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 simple filtered-list tool with strong annotations and a detailed input schema, the description is complete. It covers the use case, behavior, performance note, and key return fields. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional; the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (name_contains, limit, language), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of '(partial) name' aligns with name_contains but does not add semantics beyond the schema. No ambiguity or gap that requires compensation.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: find public procurement offices by partial name. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that search procurements/awards by noting it resolves an authority name rather than a project. The use_case tag adds valuable context.

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 includes a clear when-to-use clause ('when the user names an authority rather than a project'), which guides selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies the distinction. This is clear context without formal exclusion.

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