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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that the three national sources are normalized into a single English schema — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, freshness, or whether an API key is required for an open-world search.

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 duplicated with a truncation artifact: 'in one normalized English…. Search Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish public tenders in one normalized English schema'. The repeated clause wastes the limited space and pushes the useful filter detail to the tail.

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 an opaque nested input object, the description should explain how to construct the request and roughly what comes back. Instead it offers one filter clause and leaves the input contract and result shape undocumented for a cross-border open-world search tool.

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 nominally 100%, but the actual schema is an opaque nested 'input' object whose only description is a link to an Apify page. The description compensates partially by naming the filter dimensions (keyword, buyer, value), yet gives no field names, types, or formats, so it adds only marginal meaning over the structured data.

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 (Search) and resource (Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish public tenders) with a scope descriptor (one normalized English schema). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling nordic_tender_matcher, so an agent must open both schemas to choose.

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 only usage hint is 'filter by keyword, buyer and value'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over nordic_tender_matcher or eu_grant_finder, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Routing relies entirely on the agent's inference.

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