ph-civic-data-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it explains the client-side filtering approach (since server-side search isn't exposed), mentions the 6-hour data cache, specifies that keyword/agency/region filters are case-insensitive substring matches, and clarifies the ~100 bid notice limit. This provides comprehensive operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by important implementation notes. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the core function, and the subsequent sentences explain limitations, caching, and filtering behavior without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, implementation constraints, caching behavior, filtering mechanics, and scope limitations. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, and the description addresses all other important aspects thoroughly.

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 adds meaningful context about parameter behavior that complements the 67% schema coverage. It explains that keyword searches match against title + agency + classification, and that agency/region filters use partial matching. While it doesn't detail all parameters like date_from/date_to, it provides crucial filtering semantics that enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 searches PH government procurement data from PhilGEPS open data, specifying both the verb ('search') and resource ('PH government procurement'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_procurement_summary' by focusing on search functionality rather than summary retrieval.

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 about when to use this tool by explaining it fetches the latest ~100 bid notices and filters them in-memory, which is useful for understanding its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from 'get_procurement_summary' is implied.

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