Search Japanese public-procurement bid notices (kkj.go.jp). Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| entity | No | 調達機関 (partial match) | |
| status | No | ||
| bidType | No | 一般競争入札 / 指名 / 随意 等 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it searches and returns hits with two fields. It does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.
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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the source and result fields. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping parameters or providing an example). It is minimally sufficient but not bloated.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more completeness about the return format, pagination, error handling, and limitations. It only mentions two fields in the response. The complexity of the tool (6 parameters, many siblings) warrants more detail.
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 33% (only 'entity' and 'bidType' have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'query', 'since', 'limit', or 'status'. It does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 it searches Japanese public-procurement bid notices from a specific source (kkj.go.jp) and mentions that results include 'firstSeenAt' and 'ledgerVerified'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'bid_watch_get' (retrieval) and 'bid_watch_recent_changes' (list changes).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'bid_watch_get') would be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.