qune-tech/ocds-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the embedding method ('multilingual-e5-small'), matching mechanism ('cosine similarity on the REST API'), and performance note ('German works best'). This goes beyond basic functionality to inform about underlying technology and limitations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second explains the technical process, and the third gives a practical tip. There is no wasted text.

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 moderate complexity (semantic search with embedding), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output format, error handling, or rate limits. It covers the search mechanism well but leaves gaps in full operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reiterating that 'query' is for text search and 'German works best,' but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 specific action ('Search tenders by text query') and resource ('tenders'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'match_tenders' or 'list_releases' by emphasizing text-based semantic search rather than exact matching or listing.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('by text query') and implies alternatives by specifying 'German text works best for matching German procurement data,' suggesting language considerations. However, it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or direct alternatives among siblings.

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