countriesStored notice count per buyer country (ISO alpha-3) across the whole index. Pass min_count to drop countries with only a handful of notices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_count | No | Only return countries with at least this many stored notices. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds useful context: counts are stored, span the whole index, are grouped by ISO alpha-3 country, and respect a minimum-count threshold. It does not describe the output format, but this is a minor gap for such a simple aggregation.
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 short sentences front-load the core behavior and then explain the single parameter. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.
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-required-parameter aggregation tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: scope, grouping key, and filter behavior are all stated. The only notable omission is an explicit example of the returned data shape, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more important.
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 coverage is 100%: min_count is already documented as 'Only return countries with at least this many stored notices.' The description's 'drop countries with only a handful of notices' is a paraphrase rather than new parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline.
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 names a clear resource (buyer countries by ISO alpha-3), a specific operation (stored notice count), and a scope (across the whole index). This unambiguously distinguishes it from search and detail-oriented siblings like fulltext_search and get_tender.
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 establishes when this tool is appropriate: when a country-level aggregate of stored notices is needed. It also gives a specific usage instruction (pass min_count to filter low-count countries), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.
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.
fulltext_search and search_tenders both search tenders, which could lead to confusion despite different scopes (stored index vs live previews). get_tender and summarize_tender also overlap since get_tender can optionally include an AI summary.
get_tender, search_tenders, and summarize_tender follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but countries, fulltext_search, and source_status break the pattern with noun-based names. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a tender search server: search, retrieval, summarization, country statistics, and source health are each represented without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle of finding, fetching, and summarizing tenders is covered, plus useful metadata and status tools. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit pagination or sorting controls, but agents can work around them.