CanadaBuys Federal Tenders MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default window (14 days) and hints at a paid tier with 'PRO', but says nothing about return shape, ordering (presumably by deadline), result caps, pagination, or what authentication is required beyond what the access_token schema line states.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and the key default. No waste, though the leading 'PRO.' token is unexplained and slightly opaque to an agent.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: no statement of what a result looks like, whether results are ordered by closing date, or how authentication failure behaves. An agent can call it, but not confidently predict or interpret the response.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add the crucial default of 14 for 'days' and marks 'keyword' as optional, which the bare schema does not. It still gives no guidance on keyword matching semantics or the unit/format expectations of 'days'.

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 resource and scope: open tenders closing within N days, with an optional keyword filter. The 'closing soon' window implicitly differentiates it from siblings like new_since (recently published) and tender_search, though it never names them 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 by the scope ('closing within N days'), so an agent can infer this is the deadline-driven query. However, no explicit when-to-use conditions, no mention of when to prefer tender_search or new_since instead, and no prerequisites beyond the cryptic 'PRO' prefix.

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 usefully discloses the PRO/subscriber gating and the 'open tenders' scope plus a concrete date format, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens on an invalid date.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the tier marker and the primary filter. The leading 'PRO.' is slightly cryptic but costs little.

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-param unannotated search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and date format but omits return shape, ordering, and limits — enough to call it correctly, not enough to predict its output.

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 only 33%, so compensation was needed. The description does clarify the 'since' format (YYYY-MM-DD) and marks keyword as optional, which the schema leaves undocumented; access_token is covered by its own schema description. Still thin on keyword matching semantics.

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 (published on or after) and resource (open tenders), with the date format inline. It implies a filter-based search distinct from the sibling list, though it never names closing_soon or tender_search to sharpen the distinction.

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?

"for daily monitoring" gives a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. closing_soon/tender_search guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the PRO gate.

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 load. It usefully discloses the data source (CanadaBuys), that results are limited to 3, and the sort order (newest publication date) — meaningful behavior beyond the schema. It omits matching semantics (substring vs exact), whether results are cached, and any rate/access constraints behind 'FREE'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the distinguishing 'FREE' and the result cap and ordering. No filler whatsoever.

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 simple one-parameter search with no annotations or output schema, the description covers source, result count, and ranking. It stops short of describing what a returned tender looks like or what happens on zero matches, which leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It tells the agent the parameter is a keyword used for matching, which is the parameter's whole role, but adds nothing about matching behavior (case sensitivity, phrase handling, multiple words). Marginal compensation for a single obvious parameter.

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 (searches) and a specific resource (open federal tenders on CanadaBuys) filtered by keyword. The 'top 3 by newest publication date' clause implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tender_search_full, though it never names 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 'FREE' marker and the 'top 3' cap imply this is a quick/cheap lookup and that tender_search_full covers the broader case, but neither the when-to-use nor the when-not-to-use is stated explicitly. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling name and the result cap.

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 burden. It discloses a result cap ('Up to 100'), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements for access_token, read-only semantics, ranking, or what 'open' means temporally.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the distinguishing 'PRO' tag, but 'PRO' is unexplained and the extreme brevity leaves no room for the information an agent actually needs.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage on a 4-parameter tool, the description is far too thin to fill the gaps—nothing on result shape, auth, pagination, or how the 100-item cap interacts with the filters.

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 only 25% and the description merely restates the parameter names keyword, category, and region without adding accepted values, matching behavior, or format. Only access_token has a schema description, so the filter parameters remain semantically undefined in both places.

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 the resource (open tenders) and the filtering dimensions, and the 'PRO' prefix hints at a premium tier versus the sibling tender_search. But it omits an explicit verb and never states how this differs functionally from tender_search, leaving the agent to guess whether it is the same search with a larger cap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the three sibling tools (closing_soon, new_since, tender_search) despite the near-identical name tender_search. The only implicit signal is 'PRO', which is unexplained jargon.

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