Hae julkiset hankinnat (Hilma)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating the default behavior (only open notices are returned) and enumerating the returned fields (title, entity, deadline, links). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The main action and source are front-loaded, and the return values and default filter are stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

For a simple search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the returned fields and the default filtering behavior, which is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps like pagination or result ordering are not critical given the low 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 each parameter (hakusana, max_tulokset, vain_aktiiviset) is already documented with meaning and defaults. The description adds minimal extra semantics, only echoing the search word and default active-only behavior. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: searching public procurement notices from Hilma using a search word. It specifies the resource (Hilma, hankintailmoitukset.fi), the input (hakusanalla), and the output fields (title, procuring entity, deadline, links). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like hae_hankintailmoitus or hae_yritystiedot_prh, even without explicit comparison.

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 when to use the tool (when searching for Finnish public procurement notices), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement.

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