Search public tenders and contract awards

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive semantics, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational facts: it runs the Apify Actor tacps126/tenders-radar on the caller's own account, costs roughly $0.004 per notice, and caps spend at $0.5 per call, with cost scaling by max_items. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs before choosing result volume. It does not say whether an Apify token must be configured or what happens on cap exhaustion.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded, but it is followed by a fourteen-portal enumeration and a field list that consume most of the text, while the critical cost and per-call spend cap land in the final sentence. Informative, but the ordering buries the constraint that should govern the agent's max_items choice.

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?

With a full output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, yet it usefully summarizes them (title, buyer, deadline, value, codes, suppliers). It covers coverage, defaults, cost and output, with only the account/auth prerequisite and result-cap behavior left implicit for a ten-parameter, nested-input tool.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, and most carry examples there. The description only reinforces a couple of defaults ('Open tenders by default') and lists returned fields, which is supplementary rather than compensating. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — searching public procurement notices — and enumerates the exact portals covered (SAM.gov, TED, Contracts Finder, etc.), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the nearest sibling, search_grants, which an agent would reasonably confuse with procurement notices.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to an alternative tool. The only directional statement, 'Open tenders by default,' describes a parameter default rather than selection criteria, so the agent must infer the use case entirely from the portal list.

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