search_tenders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses ordering behavior (soonest-closing first, or relevance with keywords), the ~5% null notice_url rate with instruction to quote reference number instead, the requirement to pass on notes field content, keyword matching limitations (no synonyms, OR/NEAR treated as words), and region exclusion reporting. This is exceptional transparency.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage scenarios, sibling differentiation, ordering, URL null handling, notes field instructions, and keyword limitations. It is front-loaded with the most important use-case information and each subsequent sentence addresses a distinct aspect, making it dense but efficient.

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 complexity (5 optional params, output schema present, multiple siblings), the description is fully complete. It explains ordering, null URLs, notes propagation, keyword behavior, region caveats, and timezone handling. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed, and the description covers all operational edge cases an agent would need.

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 coverage is 100% with solid per-parameter descriptions, but the description goes well beyond: it explains keyword semantics ('has no idea about synonyms', operators are ordinary words), warns that region filtering excludes 126 notices and to mention the count, and clarifies closing_before has no timezone conversion. This adds meaningful semantic context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search open Canadian federal tender notices — solicitations still accepting bids.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search_awards by stating it covers open tenders, not awarded contracts, and even names the alternative.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for 'what can we bid on', 'which contracts are coming up', or finding work in a field or region. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Not for contracts already awarded: search_awards covers who won what, for how much.' This is model guidance with named alternatives.

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