Search PhilGEPS procurement notices

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses key behavioral traits: the lack of server-side search, fetching only ~100 latest notices, 6-hour caching, and client-side case-insensitive substring matching. This adds significant operational context that helps set expectations about data freshness and filtering behavior.

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: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact note explaining limitations and behavior. Every sentence adds necessary context, and the note is front-loaded with the most important limitation before procedural details.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the critical operational constraints: data source, fetch limit, caching, and filtering approach. It would be more complete if it mentioned date-range parameter handling or explicitly referenced relevant sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description explicitly explains that keyword/agency/region filters are applied client-side as case-insensitive substring matches, adding meaning beyond the schema. It also clarifies that keyword matches against title + agency + classification. However, the date_from and date_to parameters lack descriptions both in schema and description, which keeps this from a 5.

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 the tool's function: 'Search PH government procurement from PhilGEPS open data.' The verb 'search' plus the specific resource 'PhilGEPS' and object 'procurement notices' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_infra_projects by focusing on procurement notices.

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 on how the tool operates: it fetches the latest ~100 bid notices and filters them in-memory because PhilGEPS lacks server-side search. This implies appropriate use cases and limits, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to sibling tools.

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