get_procurement_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'latest notices cached' which hints at caching behavior, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or what happens when data is missing. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentence that packs the core purpose and data source with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return value documentation) and fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency leaves gaps, especially since no annotations are provided.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (year, agency, region), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds context about aggregating cached data but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 aggregates procurement statistics from PhilGEPS, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_procurement (individual notices) and summarize_infra_spending (infrastructure focus).

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 use for aggregated statistics rather than detailed search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_procurement or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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