Search Vehicles

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: the non-rolling-window nature of vehicle data, the FPDS placeholder meaning of ceiling value 999999999999, and the exact 12-character requirement for UEI fields. This adds real value and helps avoid misinterpretation.

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 structured with a clear intro, a context paragraph, and a bulleted parameter summary. Every sentence adds information, and the bullet list makes the parameter details scannable. Despite its length, it is efficient and front-loads the core concept before diving into specifics.

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 explains the data model (long-lived vehicles), provides filter guidance, explains the output field (award_id_piid), and names the follow-up tools. An output schema exists, so return values are further specified. The agent has everything needed to decide when to call this and how to interact with the results.

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 of explaining parameters. It explains uei/parent_uei, piid, idv_type, active_only, ceiling_min/max, and limit, including special semantics for ceiling values. It does not cover all parameters (e.g., naics, agency, date_from/to, sort_by, sort_order, offset), but the most critical and nuanced ones are addressed, which is strong for a 15-parameter tool.

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 contract vehicles: IDIQs, GWACs, FSS schedules, BPAs, BOAs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from prime-contract search and other sibling tools by focusing on long-lived vehicle contracts. The listed vehicle types map exactly to the idv_type parameter, making it unambiguous what this tool finds.

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 explains when to use this tool versus prime-contract search, noting that vehicles are not limited to a rolling window. It also provides guidance on interpreting the ceiling placeholder and directs the agent to pass award_id_piid to get_vehicle or get_vehicle_holders for follow-up, covering both context and workflow.

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