get_tender_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTML-to-Markdown conversion, which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and key feature. The second sentence lists return types, which adds value but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity, such as by merging the return information into the main sentence.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and the schema coverage is high. However, with no annotations and a tool that likely involves data retrieval and conversion, the description should do more to address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error cases. It's adequate but has clear gaps in context for a tool with these characteristics.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tender_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 purpose: 'Get all announcements for a tender with HTML-to-Markdown conversion.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('announcements for a tender'), and a key feature (HTML-to-Markdown conversion). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tender_details' or 'get_ilan_ad_detail', which might also retrieve tender-related information, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_tender_details' or 'search_tenders', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is for retrieving announcements, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection, resulting in a low score.

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