search_tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the paginated return format and non-destructive nature implicitly, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral constraints, meeting only minimal adequacy.

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 concisely structured with a brief introductory line, followed by a clear bullet-point list of parameters and a final line about the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the input semantics and return structure. However, it lacks examples, error handling, or edge-case behavior, which would make it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed, human-readable explanations for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'CPV classification code (e.g. "72000000" for IT services)'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and name information.

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 the tool searches for public procurement tenders from specific sources (BOAMP and TED). It uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'tenders', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_awards' and 'winner_intel'.

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 provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_awards or winner_intel. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage inference implied.

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