get_buyer_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned data categories and legal metrics such as average payment days, 60-day compliance, and treasury risk, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, data freshness, source, authentication needs, rate limits, and response 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every listed element contributes to scope. It is somewhat dense because of the parenthetical legal metrics, but it remains efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain enough about the returned intelligence and operational behavior. It lists the main returned components, but it lacks details on recency or time horizon, data source, response shape, and when to use it over sibling tools.

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%, and the buyer_query parameter already explains acceptable buyer names, ministries, local authorities, and acronyms with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about how the query is matched or interpreted.

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 a specific resource, public buyer intelligence in Morocco, and enumerates its outputs: public procurement history, payment profile under Law 69-21, and latest issued tenders. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_tenders or get_company_profile.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The data categories imply a buyer-profile use case, but the agent must infer when this is preferable to sibling tools.

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