tender_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'full structured record', but does not disclose the record's fields, structure, pagination, or error behavior. While 'get' implies a read-only operation, this is not explicit, and no side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence of 9 words that front-loads the core action ('Get the full structured record') without extraneous content. It is appropriately brief and clear.

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 tool with no output schema and only one parameter, the description should describe what the 'full structured record' contains and any expectations on the output. It is vague, omits return format details, error handling, and does not clarify the scope of a tender record. An agent lacks confidence in what will be returned.

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% and the description adds no information about tender_id beyond the schema's type string. There is no guidance on format, constraints, examples, or what constitutes a valid tender ID, so the description offers zero value over the schema.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'full structured record for one tender', and the method 'by id'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_tenders (which searches broadly) and look_up_cpv (which looks up CPV codes).

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 implies its use for fetching a specific tender by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'use when you have a tender_id' or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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