search_tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape, free-text matching behavior, and ISO/CPV value formats, which is helpful. However, it omits default limit behavior, the meaning of source='auto', pagination, and how filters combine.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized for a search tool.

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?

Without an output schema, listing the returned fields is a good compensation. However, with 8 optional parameters and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps around source semantics, limit behavior, and filter interactions, making it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query, country, and cpv, but 5 of 8 parameters (limit, source, deadline_from, min_value_eur, max_value_eur) receive no semantic explanation. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not fully carry the burden.

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 EU public tenders and lists the fields returned, which makes the basic purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tender_details, but the 'list of tender records' wording signals an aggregate search rather than a single-record lookup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tender_details, analyze_tender, or market_snapshot_tool. The parameter explanations imply how to filter, but the description never states selection criteria or exclusions.

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