Search Polish public tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (list with titles, buyers, locations, etc.) and suggests Polish terms work best, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or error handling.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first states purpose and return format, second provides usage examples. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a complex 14-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose clarity and usage examples. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like result limitations, authentication needs, or error scenarios given the tool's complexity.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 public procurement tenders from specific sources (BZP and TED via Atlas Przetargów) and returns a list with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search functionality rather than getting specific entities or statistics.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool with concrete query examples ('aktywne przetargi budowlane w Warszawie', 'zamówienia IT powyżej 500k PLN', 'co kupuje ZUS'), giving clear context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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