GovContract Radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are a condensed 'digest' rather than full records, but says nothing about ordering, freshness windows, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the filter, and the returned fields with no filler. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the digest fields (title, agency, type, deadline). It still omits ranking/recency semantics and result-shape detail, but combined with the annotations it is nearly sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit and naics) are already documented in the schema with defaults and an example. The description restates the NAICS matching but adds no format or validation detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get a quick digest') plus a precise resource ('federal contract opportunities') and scope ('most recent ... matching a NAICS code'). It clearly conveys a summarized listing, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings gov.search or gov.near_expiry.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'quick digest of the most recent' postings. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to gov.search (full search) or gov.near_expiry (deadline-focused), leaving the agent to infer which tool fits.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the domain framing (closing-soon opportunities) but says nothing about return format, pagination, or data freshness beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear subject and an appended use-case clause; nothing is wasted, though the dash clause is the only extra content.

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 two-parameter, read-only discovery tool with full schema coverage, no output schema needed, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the sibling-differentiation gap keeps it from a 5.

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 100% and both parameters (days, naics) are documented in the schema, including the default of 7. The description restates the days concept at a high level but adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find federal contract opportunities') plus a clear scope constraint ('that close within a number of days'). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its siblings gov.search and gov.digest, leaving the agent to infer which one to reach for.

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?

'Useful for last-minute bidding and pipeline management' implies a use context but never states when to choose this over gov.search or gov.digest, nor any exclusions. Usage is suggested rather than prescribed.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive semantics, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: hourly sync and a posted-to-radar latency ceiling of 60 minutes, plus the fields returned. It does not address result limits or pagination, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: capability first, freshness caveat second, return shape and routing cue last. Each sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (title, agency, type, set-aside, deadline, postedAt, links) and the freshness profile. The only omission an agent might want is result-count limits or pagination behavior, which are not mentioned anywhere.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with defaults and examples in the schema. The description restates the same filter axes (NAICS example '541511', set-aside types, posting window→days) without adding syntax, constraints, or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and a precisely scoped resource (live federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov), then enumerates the filter axes: NAICS, keyword, set-aside, posting window. The final sentence positions it as the entry point relative to siblings like gov.digest and gov.near_expiry.

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?

"Call this first for any federal opportunity question" gives a clear routing instruction and implicitly subordinates the sibling tools. It stops short of naming the alternatives or stating when *not* to use this tool (e.g., when you only want expiring items, use gov.near_expiry).

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