search_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output is a list with titles, procuring unit, and deadlines, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (though search is likely read-only), rate limits, or limitations such as the inability to filter by user/workspace. It provides some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists supported features and output. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is easily scannable.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks depth. It covers the main search capabilities and gives some output structure, but it doesn't mention pagination (top/skip), sorting, or the exact behaviors of filters (e.g., OR logic for CPV). The schema covers those details, but the description would benefit from a note on how results are ordered or a reference to sibling tools for further actions. It is adequate but not fully 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions several parameter categories (free-text, CPV, time, notice type, procedure type) that map to schema properties, but it does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It omits mention of parameters like order_by, top, skip, and procurement_type. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Hae hankintailmoituksia Hilmasta' (Search procurement notices from Hilma). It lists specific filtering capabilities (free-text, CPV, time, notice type, procedure type) and return fields (titles, procuring unit, deadlines). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notice_full and get_expiring_soon, which target individual notice retrieval or time-specific lists.

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 usage as a search tool by detailing its filtering and listing behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude any use cases. It neither mentions sibling tools nor provides when-not-to-use guidance. Context is clear but not explicit regarding selection among siblings.

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