eu_ted_public_tenders_scraper

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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or rate limits apply, how results are paginated, or what happens on failure, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the search target, relevant data types, and output links.

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 straightforward two-parameter search tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions notices and official PDF/HTML links but does not describe result behavior, pagination, or any operational constraints, which are not covered elsewhere since there are no annotations or output schema.

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 both parameters already have clear schema-level documentation. The description adds some context by mentioning CPV codes and contracting authorities, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states about searchQuery and maxResults.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Search,' and precisely identifies the resource: European Union Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) public procurement notices. It also lists relevant searchable content such as CPV codes, contracting authorities, and official document links, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 the tool is for EU public tender searches, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives or clarify any prerequisites. With no closely related sibling tools, the usage context is reasonably implied, but explicit guidance is absent.

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