Search EU funding & grant calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about source, sorted-by-deadline ordering, and covered programmes, but does not describe rate limits, authentication, pagination, or return behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted wording. The programme examples and source note earn their place by clarifying coverage.

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 read-only, open-world search tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives adequate domain context. However, it is incomplete for guiding correct use: it omits parameter semantics, alternative tools, and any practical search constraints.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions open/forthcoming statuses implicitly but says nothing about the keywords or maxResults parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search open/forthcoming calls on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal') and lists relevant EU programmes, making the domain clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_ted_tenders or search_boe_borme, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states what can be searched but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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