check_red_flags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that data problems are reported separately and not treated as flags — a genuine output-semantics detail — but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or whether checks are exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose before the flag list. The middle line is telegraphic to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the flag list plus the data-problems caveat cover the essentials. Missing are the parameter-interaction rules (both optional/none supplied) and any routing versus the sibling analysis tools, leaving gaps for a zero-coverage schema with no annotations.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the scope of each parameter (ocid = one tender, buyer = all of that buyer's awards), which adds meaning, but it never states whether both can be combined or what happens when neither or both are supplied (both are optional with null defaults).

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?

States a concrete capability — integrity/red-flag checks — and enumerates the specific patterns detected (single bidder, direct method, signed before close, just-below-round amounts, repeat winners), which is well beyond a tautology. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like price_benchmark or supplier_profile, but never explicitly routes against them.

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 phrase 'for one tender (ocid) or all awards of a buyer' implies the two operating modes, which is some usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over price_benchmark or supplier_profile, no exclusions, and no statement about what triggers the buyer-wide mode.

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