get_tender_details

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not confirm it is read-only, does not state what happens when the ID is unknown or the DCE is unavailable, and says nothing about response shape beyond a list of content types. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly what is returned. No filler or repetition, though the list of content types could be tightened slightly.

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 one-parameter lookup the description covers what is returned reasonably well, but with no annotations and no output schema it should disclose read-only behavior and failure modes. The tool's value proposition is clear; the operational context is thin.

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% and the single parameter's description already explains the ID formats accepted (Soumit ID or market reference). The description adds nothing param-specific, but with one fully documented parameter the baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb+resource: it retrieves the complete record ('fiche complète') for a tender, plus the DCE synthesis, eliminatory criteria and Go/No-Go status. This is clearly a detail-fetch tool, distinguishable from the sibling search_tenders which lists/searches. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, keeping it at 4.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a tender_id from search_tenders first, and no routing to alternatives like search_tenders or get_buyer_intelligence. Usage is only implied by the fact that a single ID is required.

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