execute_procurement_intent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the internal steps (contract typing, authority check, evidence extraction from external storage) and implies external reads, but it never says whether the typed contract is persisted, whether anything is submitted to the portal, or what permissions the caller_role enforces. For a tool whose name implies execution, the side-effect profile remains ambiguous.

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?

A single dense sentence packs in the whole pipeline, but it opens with the branding parenthetical 'Cadre d'exécution agentique (Soumit Execution Framework)', which does little for tool selection, and closes with the vague phrase 'lien de gouvernance portail'. The substantive steps are present but buried in jargon.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description outlines the conceptual flow but omits what the typed contract looks like, whether execution has persistent effects, and how failures are surfaced. It is adequate to identify the tool but not complete enough to predict its consequences.

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 every parameter including caller_role and the amount compliance test is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 names specific operations: converting a business intention into a typed contract, verifying authority under Decree 2-22-431, extracting textual evidence from Backblaze B2/R2, and returning a portal governance link. That is far more concrete than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish this composite pipeline from overlapping siblings like check_regulatory_compliance or verify_evidence_chain.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given that at least three sibling tools (check_regulatory_compliance, verify_evidence_chain, submit_portal_recourse) cover parts of the same pipeline, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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