Get Office Profile

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

Beyond the provided annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the tool is free on every plan, returns 404 when no FPDS activity exists for the office, and returns 503 while the index is building with a retry hint. This enriches the agent's expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, then moves to usage context, parameter guidance, and error behavior in a logical order. Every sentence adds actionable information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it returns conceptually, when to use it, how to obtain the parameter, and what errors to expect. The existing output schema obviates the need to detail return fields.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter. It explains that office_code is the FPDS office code and where to obtain it (discover_offices or a contract/award record), which goes beyond the bare schema. It stops short of specifying format or example values, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Get one contracting office's full buying profile' and enumerates the contents (obligations, competition, set-aside lean, NAICS). It also distinguishes this tool from single-NAICS tools by emphasizing the ENTIRE buying pattern, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: after discover_offices or when an office_code is already known from a contract/award record. It contrasts the scope against per-NAICS analysis, giving useful context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a direct when-not-to-use statement.

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