govcon-feed

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the 180-day live window and event accrual, giving good insight into behavior, though lacks details on auth or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, concise, no fluff. All words contribute meaning.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. It covers the core functionality, though could mention output format.

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?

Only parameter 'contractor' is a string. The description clarifies it expects a contractor name, adding value over the schema which has no description. However, no further syntax or examples are provided.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent federal awards and events for a contractor, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_awards which likely do broader searches.

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 implies usage when you have a contractor name, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions weekly frequency and filter but omits details on data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'modifications'.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it could benefit from slightly more structure to improve scannability.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to explain output format, pagination, or data freshness, making it insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 coverage is only 25% (days and expiringDays described). The description does not elaborate on other parameters like naics, agency, keyword, maxAmount, minAmount, recipient, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a weekly delta digest covering new awards, modifications, and expiring contracts (recompete opportunities), and specifies it is best for BD teams. It distinguishes itself from siblings like competitor_watch and search_awards.

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 implies usage for BD teams and recompete opportunities but provides no explicit when-not or alternative comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'direct live search' implying real-time queries, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior, result format, error handling, or any side effects. The limit parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with no unnecessary words. Key information (verb, resource, filter types, usage context) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only lists filter types and declares it a live search. It omits details on pagination, error handling, return structure, and parameter restrictions (e.g., max query length, required parameter combinations). This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 only 11% (only limit has a description), placing the burden on the description. The description lists parameter categories (NAICS, agency, etc.) but does not specify formats (e.g., date string format for start/end, NAICS code length, currency units for min/max amount). The limit default and max are in schema but not described.

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 clearly states the action (direct live search) and the resource (US federal awards via USAspending.gov), enumerating multiple filter types (NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date range, $ range). The tool is distinct from sibling tools (competitor_watch, delta_digest, whats_changed_since) which serve different purposes.

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 advises use for 'ad-hoc lookups', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names imply different use cases.

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

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

In the absence of annotations, the description conveys the core behavior: it returns new/modified awards, uses a cursor for incremental updates, and supports filtering. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, but the described behavior is accurate and sufficient for basic understanding.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the key action (return new/modified awards) and then provide usage details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It's well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema and 8 parameters, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose and filtering capabilities. It explains the cursor for stateful tracking. However, it could mention common expected output fields or pagination behavior to fully equip the agent, but it's still fairly complete.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the cursor mechanism and summarizing filterable fields (NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, $ range). With 63% schema coverage, the description compensates by grouping filters, though it omits the 'limit' parameter from the prose. Overall, it enhances understanding.

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 clearly states the tool returns new or modified federal contract awards since a cursor token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling it 'the GovCon delta feed's core lock-in primitive', implying it's the primary mechanism for incremental updates, unlike search_awards which likely handles search queries.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use: to get changes since a previous cursor. It explains the cursor mechanism and available filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling alternatives like competitor_watch or delta_digest.

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