Summarize PhilGEPS procurement

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the significant behavioral detail that data comes from 'latest notices cached from PhilGEPS', indicating potential staleness and that this is not a live query. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. It states the verb and resource immediately, with no redundant phrasing or extraneous details. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations, an output schema, and a fully described parameter schema, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the cached-data context, which is essential for setting expectations. Minor additional detail about the output statistics could be useful, but the output schema mitigates this gap.

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% coverage, with each parameter (year, agency, region) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which meets the baseline for a schema-heavy tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('procurement statistics') with a clear data source ('latest notices cached from PhilGEPS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_procurement (searching individual notices) and summarize_infra_spending (infrastructure spending), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 a summary use case through the verb 'Aggregate', but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_procurement. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative references, so the usage context must be inferred from the name and description.

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