Search FPDS Contract Transactions

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints, the description reveals the non-obvious FY2025 coverage floor and that an early date_from is silently clamped rather than rejected, with a window block disclosing what actually ran. It also calls out the behavioral difference from search_vehicles regarding flooring.

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 long, but every paragraph serves a distinct purpose: scope and alternatives, parameter semantics, data coverage caveat, and result chaining. The material is front-loaded with the core purpose before moving to structured details.

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?

Given 15 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: source scope, parameter formats and constraints, the clamping behavior, defaults, max limit, and downstream tool routing. The output schema can handle return-field details, so no critical context is missing.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the bulleted parameter notes carry the full burden and do it well: exact 12-char UEIs, 6-digit NAICS, YYYY-MM-DD date format, FPDS award type codes, allowed sort fields, and a limit cap of 250. The offset parameter is not described, so a small but real gap remains.

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 specific verb and resource: Search FPDS prime contract transactions, and characterizes it as the comprehensive authoritative award record. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sparse SAM Award Notice slice in search_awards, so an agent can separate it from close sibling tools.

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 explicitly routes SAM Award Notice queries to search_awards and contrasts its coverage-floor behavior with search_vehicles, which is not floored. It also tells the agent what to do with results by chaining award_id_piid to get_contract, get_contract_modifications, and get_contract_vehicle.

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