detectar_concentracio_contractes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns aggregated data (company, number of contracts, total amount) and implies read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on data source, freshness, or any side effects. For a query tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it detects, what it shows, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, behavior, and return fields. It lacks details like pagination or date range limits, but is sufficient for typical use.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'departament' is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it detects anomalous concentration of contracts among few companies, shows companies with most contracts and total amount per department or year, and is useful for detecting favoritism. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'cercar_contractes' (search contracts) and 'detall_contracte' (contract details).

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 description implies usage for detecting potential favoritism when analyzing contract concentration. It provides context (per department or year) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given siblings, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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