Get Recompete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it says the tool is 'Factual, signals-not-scores, no win-probability guess' and clarifies that the response's incumbent_uei is the same identifier other tools accept as uei. This is useful but not exhaustive.

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 compact and every line earns its place: core purpose, tool category/access tier, behavioral stance, direct-lookup distinction, piid source, and identifier convention. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and one well-sourced parameter, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly. It even covers the sibling distinction and cross-tool identifier semantics, which are the main contextual risks.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for piid, so the description must compensate. It does so by telling the agent exactly where to source piid: 'from search_recompetes, get_contract, or get_vehicle'. It also relates the response identifier to the tool family's uei convention, which helps the agent chain calls correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one recompeting/expiring contract by PIID, plus incumbent-vulnerability signals'. It differentiates from the sibling search_recompetes by noting this is a direct ID lookup, not a windowed search.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with search_recompetes ('Not windowed, a direct ID lookup (unlike search_recompetes)') and tells the agent where to obtain the piid value: 'from search_recompetes, get_contract, or get_vehicle'. It also notes this is a Capture & Teaming / Post-Award tool and Pro only.

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