Search Recompetes

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it never outputs win-probability, returns specific fields like agency_code/sub_agency_code and award_id_piid, explains the options-exhausted subset as high-confidence 'must recompete,' and notes the get_recompete caveat. It also explains that incumbent_excluded means currently on the SAM exclusions list, which materially affects interpretation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, parameter semantics are organized in compact bullets, and cross-tool routing is placed where it is actionable. The length is justified by the tool's 14-parameter surface and zero schema descriptions.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of inline schema descriptions, the description covers the central filters, output highlights, and follow-on tool routing. It is missing guidance on a few parameters (state, set_aside, sort_by meanings) that could still cause confusion, but the output schema and rich annotations lessen the burden. Overall this is a well-rounded definition with only minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It does this well for naics (exactly 6 digits), agency (substring), ends_after/within_months (window semantics with a worked example), date_anchor (two enum meanings), options_exhausted_only, incumbent_excluded (true/false/omit), and sort_by (acceptable values). However, state, set_aside, amount_min/max, limit, and offset receive no explanation, and the sort_by values are listed without meaning. Strong but incomplete compensation.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Find contracts entering recompete within a window.' It clearly frames the tool as a market read for new business and a post-award watch on one's own contract expiration, and explicitly contrasts it with get_recompete's single-contract form. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 names the intended use cases (new-business market read, post-award self-monitoring) and explicitly routes to alternatives: get_recompete for single-contract detail, and get_contract/get_vehicle for raw FPDS records. It also scopes the tool as 'Capture & Teaming / Post-Award, Pro only, factual, never scored.' This is explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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