public-tenders-es-eu

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 describes the search as a read-only query over EU tenders and explicitly limits result count and recency, which implies a non-destructive behavior with bounded output. However, it does not disclose the output response shape or any rate limit or authorization considerations, leaving some behavior unstated.

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 lead sentence followed by a line per parameter, each line containing only necessary examples and constraints. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: all parameters, representative examples, defaults, and valid ranges are explained. The main gap is that the returned structure is not described, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 schema provides no descriptions at all, yet the description fully covers every parameter: country codes and format, keyword semantics, CPV prefix usage with example, days_back range and default, and limit range and default. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search public-sector tenders in TED (EU official procurement notices).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and its domain. There are no siblings to differentiate, but the object and scope are unambiguous.

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?

No sibling tools are present, so there are no alternatives to compare against. The description conveys clear usage context by explaining how each parameter narrows the search and what values are valid, such as ISO-3166 alpha-3 country codes and 'ALL' for EU-wide. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but no ambiguity exists about the intended task.

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