search_tenders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about the data source (TED, CC BY 4.0), authentication tiers (guest vs. API key), and a disclaimer about no guarantee of award. This goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not cover rate limits or pagination.

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 a single paragraph but packs essential information: purpose, output fields, filters, authentication, and data source. It could be improved by breaking into bullet points for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains what the tool returns (list of tenders with verdict details) and covers authentication differences. However, it omits pagination details and does not mention ordering or other common search parameters, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description echoes these filters (sector, country, SME-only, min score) without adding new semantics or usage details for each parameter, so it does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 it searches open EU tenders with a bid/no-bid verdict, listing specific output fields like Worth-It score, reason, competition density etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_winnable_lanes or get_verdict which have different scopes.

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 explains the tool's purpose and notes that guests get expired tenders while API key holders get live ones, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied but not fully directed.

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