search_awards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only search but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or any behavioral nuances beyond parameter descriptions.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a requirement line, and a bulleted parameter list. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks examples, error scenarios, or explicit behavioral details. An existing output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could be more thorough for a 9-parameter tool.

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 description provides brief one-liners for each of the 9 parameters (e.g., 'cpv: CPV code filter'), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. However, it lacks details like formats or allowed values, and schema coverage is 0%.

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 clearly states it searches for award notices (who won which public contract, for how much), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tenders (tenders) and winner_intel (likely winner intelligence).

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 mentions a prerequisite (Starter tier or above) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives or exclude cases. Usage is implied but not fully delineated.

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