search_tenders

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about result ordering/ranking, whether results are paginated or truncated, or what happens when no filters are supplied. It only implies a hard cap of 50 via the max_results arg, which is parameter semantics rather than behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact per-parameter list with zero filler. The docstring 'Args:' framing is slightly code-styled but does not impede comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are well covered. What is missing for a six-parameter search tool is behavioral context: how results are ordered, whether result sets are capped or paged beyond max_results, and how this tool relates to its search-adjacent siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines each of the six parameters with real meaning — query is matched against title and description, source enumerates fts/contracts_finder/ted with empty meaning all, country is ISO alpha-2 with an example, cpv_division is a 2-digit division with an example, open_only keys on deadline, and max_results caps at 50. It stops short of stating how source values interact or whether query is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search tenders') plus the mechanism (keyword and filters), which is enough to distinguish it from get_tender. It does not distinguish it from match_profile or upcoming_deadlines, which are the siblings an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (match_profile for profile-based matching, upcoming_deadlines for deadline-driven retrieval). The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name and parameter list.

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