UK Data: Markets and EU

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, yet it only discloses the credit cost. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Search' implies it), what permissions or authentication are required, how results are paginated, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 wording. The cost note is compact and directly relevant to invocation decisions.

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 three parameters whose schema descriptions are uninformative, the description should do more. It omits result format, pagination behavior, date-window semantics, and any guidance on parameter interaction, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are nearly meaningless ('number', 'string, required'). The description adds no meaning about what query searches, what units daysBack uses, or what limit controls.

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 verb (Search), resource (EU public procurement notices), source (TED), and method (full text), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools, but those cover unrelated domains (SEC filings and World Bank), making confusion unlikely.

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 implies this is the tool for full-text searches of EU procurement notices, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which to prefer alternatives, and no mention of how daysBack or limit should shape usage. The agent must infer all invocation context.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags two traits the schema does not: a 2-credit cost and a hard one-year recency window. However, it says nothing about authentication, pagination, result ordering, default result count, or whether the call is read-only vs side-effecting, which for an unannotated tool is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentences with the primary capability front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and the cost tag. No filler, no redundancy, and the parenthetical cost is easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back from a filings search — it does not mention result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior. The recency and cost constraints are well covered, but return-value expectations and limit behavior leave an agent guessing.

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 schema descriptions are placeholders ("string", "number"), so the text genuinely earns credit. It marks `forms` as optional and supplies concrete form-type examples (10-K, 8-K, S-1) absent from the schema, and clarifies that `query` drives full-text matching. It says nothing about `limit` semantics, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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+resource ("Full-text search of SEC filings") with scope ("in the last year") and an optional filter. The domain is unmistakable against siblings eu_tenders and world_bank, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 only implied: full-text search implies a query-driven lookup, and the ")cost: 2 credits" note hints at a trade-off but gives no alternative to weigh it against. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on how to construct the query.

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 bears the full burden. It does disclose a genuine non-schema trait — the cost of 1 credit — plus the default indicator behaviour, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the returned data shape, available year granularity, or whether calls are metered per request, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact clauses with the core capability front-loaded and the cost annotation trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical cost phrasing is slightly telegraphic.

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 three-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential identity, the default indicator, and the credit cost. It falls short on what the response looks like (series vs single value, year granularity) and on how to supply multiple years, which an agent must guess.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema labels are themselves thin ('number' for years, 'ISO2/3' for country), and the description compensates only for the indicator parameter by naming the default GDP/current US$ — it adds nothing about the years or country formats beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: World Bank indicator values by country, with the default indicator named (GDP, current US$). It is unambiguously distinguishable from the sibling tools, which cover unrelated domains (EU tenders, SEC filings), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 domain — an agent can infer this is the tool for country-level World Bank statistics — but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no guidance on choosing an indicator vs defaulting to GDP, and no exclusions. Given the siblings are different domains, minimal explicit routing is arguably acceptable, so a 3 rather than lower.

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