Hae julkiset hankinnat (Hilma)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers the core behavioral traits: it searches, returns specific fields, and defaults to open notices only. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a read-oriented search tool where the main behavior is transparent.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the action and output in a compact list, and the second states the default filter. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it names the source, the returned fields, and the default behavior. Minor omissions like pagination or empty-result handling don't prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions already present, including examples for hakusana, min/max for max_tulokset, and the default/effect for vain_aktiiviset. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the default open-notice filter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hakee' - searches) and resource ('julkisia hankintailmoituksia Hilmasta'), then enumerates the exact returned fields: title, procurement unit, tender deadline, and direct links. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool hae_yritystiedot_prh, which covers company data from PRH.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: when the user needs Finnish public procurement notices from Hilma, with explicit expectations about the returned information. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state exclusions, but the domain difference from PRH company searches is self-evident, so the usage context is clear.

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