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 only states that the tool 'searches' and notes result attributes, but it does not disclose read-only status, pagination, default limit behavior, or what 'open_only' implies. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, and distinguishing attributes are all front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values, defaults, and edge cases. It does none of that. An agent calling this with no arguments doesn't know what the default 'limit' or 'open_only' will do, nor what response shape to expect. The description is too thin for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining 'limit' or 'open_only' semantics, and it doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. An agent would need to guess the meaning of 'open_only' and the default limit behavior.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Luxembourg public procurement notices'), and key result attributes ('deadlines, buyers and CPV codes'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_legislation or search_datasets without needing to open the schema.

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 use for procurement-related queries, but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. With many search_* siblings, some explicit routing would be beneficial, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer intended use.

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