eu_threshold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, threshold value, comparison result), whether it is read-only or has side effects, or what inputs are actually required to assess the tender's value. The mention of category values is the only behavioral hint, but it leaves the core behavior opaque.

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 two short, direct sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the category constraint is included efficiently. It earns a high score for being appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 lack of an output schema, annotations, and the cryptic 'kind' parameter, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of 'kind', or how the tender value is passed. An agent would have to guess how to invoke it correctly, especially since the required 'category' parameter is explained but the optional 'kind' is not.

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 explains that 'category' can be 'works/supplies/services/concessions', which adds meaning for that parameter. However, it does not explain the 'kind' parameter at all, nor does it specify how the tender's value is provided (there is no value parameter in the schema). The description only partially clarifies the inputs.

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 verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource ('a tender's value is above EU mandatory publication thresholds'), and even enumerates the valid category values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as market_snapshot_tool or analyze_tender, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer the context. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or why it should be chosen over other threshold-related or tender-analysis tools.

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