Search Forecasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the forward-looking nature, pre-solicitation meaning, recompete signal relationships, and Pro-gating of contact fields. No contradiction with annotations and substantial extra transparency.

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 lengthy but well-structured with a lead paragraph, bullet list, and a 'Recompete signal' section. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler. It could arguably be trimmed, but the density justifies the length.

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 17-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the most decision-critical parameters and adds domain context (forward-looking, pre-solicitation, recompete chaining). An output schema exists to cover return structure. However, some parameters remain undocumented, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent attempting exhaustive queries.

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 explains several parameters well (source, naics, is_recompete, amount_min/max, active_only, keywords, sort_by), but omits semantics for many others (state, status, set_aside, est_award_fy, est_award_quarter, limit, offset, sort_order, agency). The partial coverage leaves gaps that could cause misparametrization.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search agency procurement forecasts') and clearly identifies the resource and its unique position as the 'only FORWARD-LOOKING layer'. It distinguishes itself from search_opportunities by emphasizing pre-solicitation status, so an agent can confidently differentiate it from the most closely related sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('find what's coming before it's postable') and when not to with a direct reference to the alternative ('for live notices, use search_opportunities instead'). It also provides contextual guidance on recompete signals and Pro-gated fields, giving clear decision criteria.

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