analyze_tender

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that `tender_id` looks up the active pool and automatically pulls value/deadline, while `text` is scanned directly, and it describes the output as a red-flag scan plus a 0-100 fit score. It could mention error/empty-input behavior, but the disclosed behavior is above-average.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an input-mode explanation with clear either/or guidance, override semantics, and a statement of expected output. Each line adds useful guidance and no unnecessary filler is present.

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?

Given the light schema annotations and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the core invocation modes, how overrides behave, and what the tool returns. The main omissions are the purpose of `buyer_type` and behavior when neither `tender_id` nor `text` is supplied, but the overall description is still adequate for an agent to use the tool reasonably.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the roles of `text`, `tender_id`, `estimated_value_eur`, and `deadline_days_left`, including the override behavior. The one gap is `buyer_type`, whose effect is not described anywhere, but most parameters gain useful semantic meaning beyond their names and types.

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 is specific: 'Analyze a tender's cross-border risk and fit for an SME bidder' clearly identifies the action, resource, and analytical outcome. It sets this tool apart from the sibling lookup and search tools, which focus on discovering or returning tender details rather than analyzing fit and risk.

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 explains how to invoke it — providing either a `tender_id` or RFP `text` — and that overrides are available. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like `tender_details` or `market_snapshot_tool`, so usage guidance is largely implied rather than explicit.

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