get_procurement_details

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about what the record contains (order description, CPV, BKP/NPK codes, deadlines, procurement office) and highlights the joinability of BKP codes with construction cost data. This goes beyond the 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 front-loaded with a use case but contains redundancy: 'Retrieve the full record' and 'Return the full record' say the same thing. The second paragraph adds useful detail, but the opening could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 explains the source of the IDs, the specific fields included in the record, and even a downstream use (joining with construction cost data). With an output schema present, return-value documentation isn't needed. This is comprehensive for a single-record retrieval tool, though it could mention error behavior.

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 provides comprehensive descriptions for both project_id and publication_id (e.g., 'Project id from a search_procurements result'), giving near-total schema coverage. The description's mention that both IDs come from a search result largely repeats the schema, adding no new parameter-level syntax or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the full record for one procurement publication' and specifies the required inputs ('once you have its ids'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on a single record's full details, including specific content like CPV codes and the procuring body.

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 explicitly notes that 'Both ids come from a search_procurements result', establishing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list, the intended workflow (search first, then retrieve full record) is clear enough.

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