search_competitor_awards

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and lists the data categories returned, but never states that it is non-mutating, says nothing about result volume/pagination behavior, matching semantics (exact vs keyword), or what happens when the name yields no match — all material for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with a categorizing prefix that orients the agent immediately; the parenthetical enumerates outputs without waste. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description does the key work of naming what comes back (awards, amounts, buyers, eviction grounds) and scoping to Morocco. Remaining gaps — matching behavior and result limits beyond the default — are minor for a read-only lookup.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema (competitor_name with examples, limit with a default of 15). The description adds no syntax, matching, or truncation guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (rechercher) and resource (historique d'un concurrent ou attributaire au Maroc), and enumerates the returned content (marchés gagnés, montants, acheteurs clients, motifs d'éviction). It does not name a distinguishing sibling such as get_company_profile or search_market_mentions, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 framing 'Intelligence concurrentielle' implies the use case (profiling a competitor's award history), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_company_profile, search_market_mentions, or search_tenders, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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