market_snapshot_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('overview', 'snapshot') and indicates the output is a summary (typical values, most urgent deadlines), but it does not disclose potential limitations like data recency, pagination, or any side effects. It is somewhat transparent but incomplete.

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 concise sentences that clearly state the purpose and available filters. No jargon, no redundancy, well-structured with a colon to introduce the overview content.

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?

With no annotations, the description must cover side effects, requirements, and limitations. It provides the core purpose and optional filters but omits any alternative tool guidance, performance expectations, or authorization needs. It is adequate for a simple read-only snapshot tool but lacks some contextual depth.

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 description partially explains the parameters: it mentions country (ISO) and CPV division for filteringaine but does not detail the max_results parameter or specific formats (e.g., how CPV division is entered). Since no schema descriptions are present and the description covers only two of three parameters, it is moderately informative but not exhaustive.

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 action ('Get a market overview') on a specific resource ('available tenders'), and specifies the content: activity by country and sector, typical contract values, and urgent deadlines. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_tenders by focusing on aggregated 'overview' data rather than individual tender searches.

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 mentions optional filters (country ISO, CPV division) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_tenders or others. It implies a summary use case but does not give exclusion criteria or direct alternatives. There is no 'when not to use' guidance.

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