Search EU public tenders (TED)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It adds useful return context ('deduplicated, structured, organisation-level records with attribution') but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or how maxResults affects the result set.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the return characteristics. Every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core search purpose and some return-value context. However, it omits sibling differentiation, usage conditions, and any output-shape guidance beyond 'organisation-level records', leaving meaningful gaps.

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 high (89%), so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description mentions CPV code, country, and publication date but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: searching EU public procurement notices on TED, with the main filter dimensions (CPV code, country, publication date). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling ted_new_tenders_alert, so it is clear but lacks sibling positioning.

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 usage as a general search tool through its filter summary, but it never states when to use this tool versus ted_new_tenders_alert or any alternatives, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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