Open/closing solicitations and key dates across your entitled states and programs. tier 'golden' = fidelity-verified; tier 'abstract' = integrity-verified but preliminary, attribute as such.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| before | No | YYYY-MM-DD upper bound | |
| states | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the meaning of tier values but does not address whether the operation is read-only, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what 'across your entitled states and programs' entails behaviorally.
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: one stating the purpose and one explaining tier semantics. No extraneous information is present, and the structure is efficient.
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 no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions. The description provides tier context but omits crucial details about return format, data structure of deadlines, how the 'states' parameter filters, and overall behavior. It is incomplete for a list 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?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters 'before' and 'states' beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'before' documented), and the description does not compensate by explaining their use or format, leaving the agent with incomplete parameter 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 uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('deadlines', 'solicitations') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_document' or 'get_state_profile' by focusing on deadlines across states and programs. The tier clarification ('golden', 'abstract') adds specificity.
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 retrieving open/closing solicitations and key dates but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or conditions. No when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: document metadata, state profiles, sub-initiative ledgers, deadlines, program search, and cryptographic verification. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_) in snake_case, with no deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a focused data-access server, covering key query operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers core data retrieval needs: documents, profiles, ledgers, deadlines, search, and verification. The references to follow-up tools indicate thoughtful integration.
