Australia Tenders (AusTender) MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the max 31-day window and substring matching behavior, but omits read-only status, return format, pagination, and rate-limit/auth details beyond what the schema says about access_token.

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 wasted text. 'PRO.' is terse, and the operational details are delivered immediately.

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 3-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core filtering behavior is understandable. However, it lacks return-value context, default behavior for days, and sibling-tool routing, leaving meaningful 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 low at 33%, but the description compensates well by explaining that days means the last N days with a maximum of 31 and that buyer performs a substring match. access_token is covered by the schema description, though a default for days is still unspecified.

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 operation: retrieve contracts in the last N days matching a buyer name substring. It clearly identifies the resource and filters, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools contract_search and recent_contracts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The max-31-day window and buyer substring imply a recent buyer-monitoring use case, but the agent must infer that without routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the max 31-day range and date format, and 'PRO' hints at subscription access, but it omits auth/access_token requirements, result limits, pagination, and output behavior.

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 terse sentence with the date-range constraint front-loaded. However, 'PRO.' is cryptic and the sentence is arguably too compressed for a tool with no annotations.

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 search tool, the invocation basics are present: required dates, date format, max span, and optional keyword. But with no annotations and no output schema, missing auth, result format, pagination, and sibling routing leave it only minimally complete.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates for from/to by specifying YYYY-MM-DD and a max 31-day span, and it marks keyword as optional. It does not define keyword matching fields, though the schema does describe access_token.

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 identifies the resource and operation: AusTender contracts within a date range with an optional keyword. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings buyer_watch or recent_contracts, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 states the date range and optional keyword but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as recent_contracts or buyer_watch. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait — the result is capped at the first 5 — but says nothing about ordering, whether more results are reachable, or the data source's freshness beyond the 7-day window.

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?

A single short sentence with the cost and recency signal front-loaded and no filler. The 'FREE.' fragment is slightly informal but does put the most decision-relevant fact first.

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-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essentials: source, time window, and result cap. Only ordering and the ability to get more than 5 results 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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 specific resource (AusTender contracts) and a precise scope (published in the last 7 days, first 5 results), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling contract_search, which plausibly overlaps.

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 leading 'FREE.' implies a cost contrast with paid siblings and the 7-day window implies 'use for recent activity', but neither is stated as an explicit when-to-use rule or exclusion versus contract_search or buyer_watch.

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