search_tenders

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about data sources (CanadaBuys and SAM.gov) and scale (11,000+ opportunities, 45 industries), which goes beyond the name. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, parameter combination logic, or read-only safety. The description gives some context but leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences that add source and coverage context, and a final sentence with practical keyword examples. Every sentence serves a purpose; no redundant content. The keyword list is a bit lengthy but valuable for an agent to know typical industry terms. Structurally excellent.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: sources, coverage, and filter examples. However, it omits important details like how multiple filters interact (AND/OR), result ordering, default behavior when no filters are provided, and what fields are returned. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, so this is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds examples of industry keywords and mentions value ranges, which aligns with the min_value/max_value parameters. However, it does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema — it reiterates the filter dimensions without adding new semantic details like how values combine. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Search government tenders by industry, region, country, or value range.' This specifies a concrete verb and resource (government tenders) and outlines the key filtering dimensions. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (get_tender_stats, get_latest_tenders, match_tenders) by emphasizing search/filtering rather than statistics, recency, or matching.

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 through 'Search government tenders by...' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusions/alternatives. It doesn't mention 'use get_latest_tenders for recent tenders' or 'use match_tenders for similarity matching'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it's clear enough for basic use but lacks direct comparative direction.

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