match_tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses use of Claude Haiku AI, relevance scoring, and the scope of 11,000+ tenders. However, it does not mention edge-case behavior (e.g., zero matches) or output formatting, so it provides moderate but incomplete transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('AI-powered semantic matching'), followed by usage guidance and a technical detail. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 a simple 3-parameter schema with complete descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the input requirements and general nature of the output ('ranked tender matches scored by relevance'). It could specify output structure more explicitly, but it is sufficient for basic invocation and understanding.

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%, covering limit, country, and description. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only reinforces that description should be a business profile, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: 'AI-powered semantic matching' leading to 'ranked tender matches scored by relevance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tenders (likely keyword-based) and get_latest_tenders, by emphasizing semantic matching based on business description.

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 instructs users to 'Describe your business, capabilities, or expertise' to get matches, providing clear input guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling tools or state when to prefer it over alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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