Search EU public tenders (TED)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that – sort order ('Newest first') and the ISO-3 country convention (e.g. ESP, DEU) – but says nothing about result caps, pagination, default maxResults, or match semantics for keywords.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the filter list is grouped efficiently and the sort behavior is appended as a tight clause. Only minor gains would come from briefer phrasing.

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 5-parameter search with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the filter surface but leaves notable gaps: the default/limit behavior of maxResults, what a result record contains, and how results are paginated. Annotations cover safety, but the return-side completeness is thin.

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 20% (just 'ISO 3166-1 alpha-3' on countries), so the description carries real compensating weight: it maps keywords, countries, CPV code and publication date to their filter meanings and supplies the ISO-3 example. It still omits the maxResults parameter entirely and gives no CPV/date format or multi-value combination semantics, so the compensation is partial.

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?

It names a specific verb (Search) and resource (public procurement notices on TED / Tenders Electronic Daily) and lists the filter fields, which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tools (search_boe_borme, search_eu_funding), leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the source name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Because two siblings are also 'search_*' tools over adjacent data (Spanish BOE/BORME, EU funding), an agent gets no help deciding which source to query for a given need.

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