search_procurement

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about no CPV codes, inactive canton behavior, and return format (newest first, date/canton/title/ID). This enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, cantonal details, Args, Returns. While comprehensive, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (nested input, no output schema), the description covers behavior, parameter details, return format, and edge cases (inactive cantons, no CPV codes). It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 high (detailed descriptions in schema). The description adds a structured Args section summarizing parameters and their roles, including notes like 'kein CPV-Code' for keyword. It provides additional context on canton behavior that complements the schema.

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 purpose: searching public procurement notices (canton-level). It specifies it is a cantonal rubric, not federal, and lists active and inactive cantons. It distinguishes from other sources (simap.ch). The verb 'suchen' is specific.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (for cantons AR, BS, TI, ZG) and when not (e.g., Zurich uses simap.ch). It also clarifies that querying unsupported cantons returns an explanation, not empty results. This provides clear guidance on alternatives and edge cases.

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