upcoming_deadlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing of open tenders but says nothing about pagination, ordering, the default 14-day horizon, how max_results truncates results, or what a 'profile' match actually means. That leaves several behavioral gaps for a query tool with three parameters.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the core filter front-loaded and no wasted words. The terseness borders on under-specification, but structurally it is efficient.

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 three-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain max_results, defaults, return shape, or how profile scoping interacts with the deadline filter. An agent would have to guess at several invocation details.

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. It only clarifies horizon_days and hints at profile_name; max_results is never mentioned, and there is no explanation of units, defaults, or whether profile_name must match an existing profile exactly. Meaning added beyond the bare schema is minimal.

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 names a specific resource (open tenders) and a clear filter condition (deadlines within horizon_days), plus an optional profile scoping. It distinguishes itself reasonably from generic search_tenders by implying a deadline-window view, though it never explicitly names that sibling or contrasts the two.

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?

It implies a use case (finding tenders closing soon) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_tenders or match_profile, and no prerequisites. The optional profile filter is mentioned but not explained as a usage decision.

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