search_tenders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value with the return shape ('total match count plus normalised notices (title, buyer, country, CPV, value, URL)') and per-param semantics, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or how scope=ALL affects volume.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by a compact, front-loaded parameter list where every line adds new syntactic or format information. The structure is scannable; the only minor cost is that the list doubles as documentation for parameters the schema already names.

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, yet the description still usefully summarizes the return payload; the filter parameters that drive matching are well covered. The gaps are the unset pagination and language parameters, which an agent may need for multi-page retrieval but which are less critical than the filters.

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 carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it explains OR-combining for keywords, ISO alpha-3/alpha-2 for countries, 8-digit CPV format with examples, YYYY-MM-DD dates, and concrete notice_type values. It leaves page, limit, and language undocumented, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Search EU public tenders') plus a scope qualifier ('simple filters'), which is clear enough for an agent to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_notices or count_tenders, so an agent cannot tell which search tool is correct without opening the schemas.

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 phrase 'simple filters' and the scope enum explanations ('ACTIVE (open now), LATEST, or ALL (archive)') implicitly convey when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing despite three closely related siblings (search_notices, count_tenders, check_query). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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