search_tenders

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 not mention pagination via lastItem, result ordering, response shape, or behavior when no filters are supplied. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 with the resource front-loaded and the filter categories following. No filler, no repetition, and it effectively communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the result format, pagination workflow, or how filters combine, leaving an agent without enough context to plan a correct multi-step search.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description's mention of date, canton, and CPV codes only echoes a subset of those fields and adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('public tenders on simap.ch'), and names key filter dimensions (date, canton, CPV codes). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like search_cpv_codes, list_institutions, and get_tender_details.

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 the tool is for finding public tenders with filters, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over complementary siblings such as get_tender_details for retrieving a specific tender or search_cpv_codes for building CPV filters. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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