detectar_fraccionament

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool analyzes but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Given the detection nature, read-only is implied, but not confirmed. The description adds behavioral context about analysis content but omits operational details.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose in one sentence, then provides a brief definition of fragmentation, and lists the analysis dimensions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is largely complete given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema. It explains the detection logic and what it analyzes. However, it lacks mention of how results are returned (e.g., boolean, list) or prerequisites (e.g., company existence). Still, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It explains the analysis context but not parameter-specific details, so it scores the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: detecting possible fragmentation of minor contracts for a company. It provides a detailed explanation of what fragmentation is (dividing a large contract to avoid public bidding) and lists the specific aspects analyzed (number of contracts, amounts, departments, temporal patterns). This makes the tool's function distinct from siblings like 'cercar_contractes_menors' or 'detectar_concentracio_contractes'.

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 contract fragmentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to related tools. The context is clear, but explicit exclusion or alternative guidance is missing.

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