us_uk_gov_contracts_procurement_scraper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but “Extracts” merely implies a read/scraping operation and “active” supplies a status constraint. It does not disclose source systems, live retrieval behavior, freshness, rate limits, failure behavior, or how mixed results are handled.

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 single compact sentence is front-loaded with jurisdiction and resource and contains little operational filler. The leading API label largely repeats the tool name, and applying “active” across both tenders and contract awards is slightly compressed and ambiguous.

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?

For a one-parameter scraper, this is minimally sufficient to identify the target data and invoke the tool using the default result cap. With neither annotations nor an output schema, the missing sources, retrieval constraints, and explanation of whether or how tenders and awards are returned together leave meaningful uncertainty.

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 sole parameter, maxResults, already has a clear schema description, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond it, such as whether the cap applies globally or separately by country or record type.

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 specific verb “Extracts” and the resources “procurement tenders and contract awards” clearly establish the purpose, with US federal and UK public-sector scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related eu_ted_tenders_scraper or clarify whether each invocation returns both tenders and awards.

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 stated jurisdictions, sectors, and “active” scope imply when the tool is relevant. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no routing to an alternative for other regions, and no guidance on choosing between tenders and awards.

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