taiwan_gov_tender_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields and pagination but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. It adequately signals read-only behavior implicitly.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence captures the core functionality, and the second provides the data source. Every sentence is valuable.

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 output schema, the description lists the main return fields (tender, agency, winning bidder, date) and mentions pagination. It is sufficient for basic use but lacks details on pagination format or result limits.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described. The description adds 'pagination' context but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 states the verb 'search' and the resource 'government procurement cases by keyword in tender name', and specifies returned fields (tender, agency, winning bidder, date). It distinguishes from sibling 'taiwan_gov_tender_by_company' by focusing on keyword search.

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 tender search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like searching by company name. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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