search_tenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (EKAP v2 portal) and some format constraints, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination mechanics beyond the 'limit' and 'skip' parameters, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output contains. For a search tool with 51 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with four brief lines. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists key data formats without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence provides specific information about the tool's domain and expected inputs, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 high complexity (51 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the data source and key format mappings but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. For such a parameter-rich search tool, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial despite the output schema.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It provides mappings for tender types (1=Mal, etc.), province plate numbers (6=Ankara), IKN format, and date format, which clarifies some enum values. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 51 parameters thoroughly. The description's additions are helpful but don't significantly enhance understanding beyond the comprehensive 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 searches Turkish government tenders from the EKAP v2 portal, providing a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Turkish government tenders'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_direct_procurements' or 'search_ilan_ads' beyond mentioning the EKAP portal, which might not be sufficient for clear sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_tenders' or 'search_direct_procurements'. It lists data formats (tender types, provinces, IKN format, dates) but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to other search tools on the server.

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