search_awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait: on no matches it 'explains why and suggests close buyer names,' which tells the agent how to interpret empty results. It says nothing about pagination behavior, the meaning of limit, or result-set size, which is a real gap for a search tool.

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?

Front-loads the core statement and the optionality note, then gives a compact per-parameter glossary with no filler. Slightly clipped phrasing in the last sentence ('explains why') costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers nearly every input including enum vocabularies. Missing annotation coverage and the undocumented 'limit' parameter are the only substantive holes for an 8-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines buyer ('part of the buyer name'), item ('word from the title or item group'), supplier, date format (YYYY-MM-DD signing date), and supplies enum values for category (goods|services|works) and method (open|selective|direct) that the schema does not contain. Only 'limit' is left undefined.

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 with scope: 'Find published awards.' An agent immediately knows this is a search over award records. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like price_benchmark or check_red_flags, so sibling routing must be inferred.

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?

'All filters optional' is the only usage hint, and it describes cardinality rather than when to reach for this tool over its siblings. There is no statement of when-not to use it or which alternative handles related questions.

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