Search infrastructure notices

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: cost_php is null due to unpublished approved budgets, and the DPWH portal is intentionally not used because of Cloudflare blocking, which explains data gaps beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause earns its place by explaining scope, source, and data limitation.

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?

Covers source, filtering scope, data nullability, and why an alternative API isn't used. With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

All 7 parameters have thorough schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds one key behavioral note—that cost_php is null in most records, which directly informs how min_cost_php behaves (filtering out nulls). This supplements, not repeats, the schema.

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?

Clearly states it searches Philippine government infrastructure projects, specifying the verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_infra_project and search_procurement by emphasizing the infra-focused PhilGEPS open notice listing.

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?

Provides clear context about the data source (PhilGEPS) and scope (infra-related work), helping an agent choose this over general procurement search. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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