search_notices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: fields default to a standard set and unknown fields are rejected by TED, i.e. the query is validated and can fail on bad field names.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then supplies one worked example and two short rules. No filler; the lowercase 'fields:' block is slightly unpolished but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the example query covers the hardest part of the syntax. However, the scope enum (ACTIVE/LATEST/ALL) governs which notices are searched and is left undefined, which is a material gap for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents the required 'query' parameter with a concrete syntax example and explains 'fields' (default set, unknown fields rejected), but says nothing about page, limit, scope (ACTIVE/LATEST/ALL) or language, leaving four of six parameters unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — running a raw TED expert-search query — and the parenthetical '(advanced)' signals this is the low-level escape hatch rather than a structured search. It does not explicitly name search_tenders as the simpler alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

"Use check_query first if unsure about syntax" gives an explicit routing rule to a named sibling for a specific condition. It stops short of stating when to use this raw query tool instead of search_tenders, which is the more consequential decision.

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