wwa_tender_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are combined and deduplicated, but it also claims a 'status' filter that is not present in the input schema, which is misleading. It omits important details such as return format, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences covering source, deduplication, and filters. The inclusion of the unsupported 'status' filter is unnecessary, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of the tool's function and sources, but it lacks details about the return structure, default behavior, and how the include flags interact. The unsupported 'status' claim further highlights incompleteness, as it suggests a capability that is not backed by the schema.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema and incorrectly mentions a 'status' filter that has no corresponding parameter. This mismatch reduces clarity and can mislead an agent about available filtering options.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource: UK public-sector tender opportunities from Contracts Finder and Find a Tender. It further notes deduplication, which helps distinguish it from sibling search tools like wwa_bid_search, though the unsupported 'status' filter introduces minor ambiguity.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for searching UK public-sector tenders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling search tools such as wwa_bid_search or wwa_blueprint_search. There is no exclusion guidance or alternative recommendation, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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