get_tender

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 discloses the exact-match requirement, non-error return for unknown references, default withholding of buyer contact details, the need for the 'pii' scope, and the policy that `include_contact` should only be set when the user explicitly asks. This is thorough and actionable.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose, usage context, and privacy/param guidance. Every sentence carries necessary information, and the description is front-loaded with the core function. There is no fluff or repetition beyond what the schema already states.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure. It covers purpose, usage, failure behavior, privacy, and permissions. It is fully complete for a fetch-by-reference tool, and the distinction from siblings makes it contextually robust.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that an unknown reference_number returns no rows rather than an error, and by clarifying the privacy rationale for include_contact ('Buyer contact details are personal data and are withheld by default'). This reinforces and enriches the schema, though some of it is redundant.

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 specific action ('Fetch one open tender notice in full') with a precise resource and scope ('by its exact reference number'), and enumerates the returned contents ('complete description, dates, category, trade agreements and buyer'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_tenders (search vs. exact fetch) and search_awards (different resource type).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use after `search_tenders` has found a notice worth reading.' It also defines exclusions: 'This does not search — the reference number must match exactly, and an unknown one returns no rows rather than an error.' This directly guides the agent away from misuse.

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