search_tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning '招標中的標案列表' (active tender lists) and specific fields, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found. The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality (search Taiwan government tenders by keyword), and the second specifies the return (active tenders with listed fields). There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning 'active tenders' earlier. 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain the return format beyond listing field names, doesn't describe error handling, doesn't mention sorting or ordering of results, and provides no context about data freshness or source limitations. For a tool that returns lists of government tenders, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions keyword searching but doesn't elaborate on search behavior (exact match, partial match, etc.) or provide additional context about the only_active or limit parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches for Taiwan government tenders by keyword in tender names and returns active tender lists with specific fields (name, agency, budget, deadline). It specifies '招標中的標案' (active tenders) which distinguishes it from some siblings like list_tenders_by_date that might show all tenders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_by_category which also searches but by category rather than keyword.

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 for keyword-based searches of active tenders, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_by_category, list_tenders_by_date, or list_tenders_by_unit. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative advantages with sibling tools.

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