get_tender

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that the response includes full detail and cross-portal links, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, read-only behavior, or whether the cross-portal links are always present.

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 with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the notable inclusion of cross-portal links.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, the description does not explain how to obtain or format tender_ref and does not clarify usage relative to sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats that the single required parameter is tender_ref. It does not explain the expected format, source, or example of a tender reference, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema property name.

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 states a clear retrieval purpose: full detail for one tender identified by tender_ref, including cross-portal links. It distinguishes the tool from list/search siblings by focusing on a single tender, though it does not explicitly name search_tenders as the alternative.

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 phrase 'by tender_ref' implies the tool is used when a known tender reference is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_tenders or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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