TenderDelta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the domain consequence explicitly: it does not create a checkout or charge money, which disambiguates it from a purchase flow.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the negative scope. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a zero-arg, no-output-schema read tool this covers what the agent gets back (price, license, purchase availability) and what will not happen. Only the shape/format of the response and what happens when no offer exists are left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameters are left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (get) plus the exact payload the offer carries: price, license and verified purchase availability. The resource is clearly distinct from the tender-oriented siblings, though the description never explicitly positions itself against them.

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?

Usage is implied (call this to check cost/licensing before deciding on the automation software), and the closing sentence rules out a checkout path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative or any stated precondition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by warning that a publication must not be read as a confirmed available contract and by enumerating the returned artifacts (original-language descriptions, source links, qualification status).

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?

Two sentences, no waste: the first front-loads what is retrieved and the second carries the interpretive caveat. Both earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the call returns and adds an important interpretive warning, which is more than most single-parameter getters do. The only real gap is how to obtain a valid id and any error behavior for a malformed one.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, though the schema does carry a regex pattern that communicates the TED id format. The description only gestures at the parameter ('one notice') and adds no format or sourcing guidance, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor is entirely silent.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one notice') plus the scope of returned content, which distinguishes it from the list-oriented search_tenders and history-oriented get_tender_changes by implication. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'one notice' hints that this is the single-record lookup, but the description never says when to use it versus search_tenders or get_operator_offer, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing a TED id from a search first). Usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavioral context: results are scoped to the latest completed daily refresh and missing records must not be treated as cancellations. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering or refresh-staleness behaviour.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: scope first, then the critical interpretation caveat. Front-loaded and every sentence carries weight, though the phrasing 'Read changes' is slightly clipped for a standalone opening.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return, and it only partially does so – it establishes the refresh window and the cancellation rule but not what a 'change' contains (added vs modified vs withdrawn) or whether ordering/timestamps are provided. Adequate for a param-less read, but an agent cannot fully anticipate the payload.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add; the baseline for a param-less tool is 4. Nothing in the text misdescribes or distorts the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read changes') and a scope ('latest completed daily refresh'), which distinguishes it from get_tender, search_tenders and get_operator_offer as the delta/changefeed tool. It falls short of a 5 only because the resource being changed (tenders) is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – an agent can infer it is for retrieving incremental updates after the last refresh, but no alternative (e.g. search_tenders or get_tender for full state) is named and no when-not condition is given. The 'absence is not cancellation' rule is interpretive guidance but not selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioural notes: that results come from 'the latest complete ... snapshot' (freshness semantics) and that text is untrusted source data rather than instructions (prompt-injection guidance). It says nothing about pagination behaviour or rate limits, so it is above the annotation baseline but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The middle sentence ('Check stale, coverage and closing_state') is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a seven-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema search tool, the description is far too thin: it never explains what the parameters do, what the result shape is, or how to page through results. The untrusted-data warning is valuable, but the description leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage means the description must carry the semantic load, and it largely does not. Only a vague gesture toward query text is present; limit, offset, country, stage, future_only and include_text are entirely unexplained, and the 'closing_state' term it does mention is not even a parameter, which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

It states a verb and resource ('Search ... TenderDelta snapshot of TED competition notices'), which is enough to separate it from the get_* siblings. But the object of the search is described as 'the published AI-related query', which is opaque and sits oddly against a schema that exposes a free-text 'q' parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether the query is fixed or caller-supplied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_tender, get_tender_changes or get_operator_offer, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The phrase 'Check stale, coverage and closing_state' gestures at result fields to inspect rather than stating a usage condition.

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