get_verdict

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: authentication failure behavior ('machine-readable key-required or subscription-required answer'), data source (TED with CC BY 4.0), and a disclaimer ('No guarantee of award').

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by prerequisites, data source, and disclaimer. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the final sentence 'No guarantee of award' is somewhat extraneous given the tool's read-only nature.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, failure modes, and data provenance. It lacks details about response format, but since no output schema exists, the description could be more explicit about what is returned. Still, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'tender_id'. The description merely echoes 'by tender id' without adding new details about format, validation, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently explains the parameter.

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 action ('Pull one versioned verdict object') and the resource ('by tender id'), listing the fields returned (decision, score, per-channel evidence, price status, reason). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on searching or finding lanes/tenders.

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 specifies prerequisites ('Requires an API key with an active TendFeed subscription') and behavior when those are missing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it is the sole retrieval tool for verdicts.

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