search_tenders

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

No annotations are provided, but the description only covers basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination (though the lastItem parameter hints at it), result count limits, or authentication requirements. The description falls short for a search tool with 12 parameters.

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, efficient sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core purpose with key filter categories, earning its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the complexity (12 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description omits crucial context like return format, pagination behavior, and how to combine filters effectively, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions filter types (date, canton, CPV) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on how to use them effectively.

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 explicitly states the tool searches public tenders on simap.ch with filters by date, canton, CPV codes, and other criteria, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse_bkp_tree or 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 usage for searching tenders with filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cpv_codes or get_tender_details, nor when not to use it.

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