search_market_mentions

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 adds useful context by naming source types (conversations, press, social signals) and saying results are recent, but it does not disclose time windows, source coverage, ranking, permissions or whether the operation is read-only.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical example list is slightly dense but every element is relevant to the search scope.

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?

It is adequate for a search tool with fully described optional parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about result format, recency horizon or source coverage to be fully complete.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format guidance or meaning beyond what query, topic, min_risk and limit already convey.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: searching conversations, press articles and social signals about Moroccan public procurement, with concrete themes such as controversies, disputes and payment delays. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_tenders or search_bpu_articles.

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?

Usage is implied by the source types and themes: this is for informal mentions rather than official tender or legal records. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over search_tenders, search_bpu_articles or get_market_barometer, and no exclusions are given.

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