Search Protests

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description meaningfully adds behavior beyond that: status=Open implies a possible performance stay, outcome=Sustained means an award was disturbed, case_number returns every docket on the case, search is full-text over specific fields, and limit is capped at 100. It also notes the tool is never scored.

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 well-structured: a punchy opener, a short context paragraph, and scannable bullets for parameter semantics. It front-loads the core purpose before details, and every section adds information rather than padding.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only search tool, especially since an output schema exists and the key behavioral distinctions are covered. The main gap is that a few optional parameters are left implicit, but the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and route to its sibling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does explain protester, search, case_number, outcome, status, sort, and limit with concrete values and semantics. However, agency, offset, filed_from, filed_to, and case_type receive no explanation, leaving a noticeable gap for some parameters an agent might need for filtering.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Search GAO bid protests' and enumerates the core returned dimensions (who protested, solicitation, when, outcome). It clearly distinguishes itself from the related get_protests_on_solicitation tool by framing this as the search entry point.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use which filter: status=Open for live pending protests, outcome=Sustained for protests that disturbed an award, and protester instead of search for competitor research because search also matches agency. It also tells the agent to pass the returned solicitation number to get_protests_on_solicitation for related protests.

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