Fast deterministic bid/no-bid checklist for one opportunity: profile fit, runway to closing, region match, and a go/caution/no-go verdict with reasons. No model call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | CanadaBuys or Alberta APC reference number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool is deterministic (no model call) and returns a verdict with reasons. While it does not detail side effects or prerequisites, it sufficiently conveys the key behavioral trait of being fast and rule-based.
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 (two sentences, ~25 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and its output, though it could mention whether it accesses external data or is purely algorithmic. Still, it serves its purpose well.
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 single parameter 'reference' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 it is a deterministic bid/no-bid checklist for one opportunity, evaluating profile fit, runway, region match, and returning a verdict. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'No model call,' which sets it apart from tools like analyze_contract_with_cohere.
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 context ('Fast deterministic,' 'No model call') implying it is for quick rule-based assessments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, such as the model-based analyze_contract_with_cohere.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple search/find tools (find_opportunities, find_matching_opportunities, search_opportunities, etc.) and detail retrieval tools (get_opportunity_details, get_alberta_opportunity_details, get_contract_details). This creates ambiguity for an agent to select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun convention in snake_case (e.g., search_contracts, watch_opportunity). Some deviations like bid_no_bid_scorecard use a multi-word verb, but overall the pattern is consistent.
25 tools is on the higher side for this domain. While the number could be justified by the need to handle both federal and provincial opportunities, many tools are redundant, making the surface feel heavy.
Core workflows (search, get details, watch/unwatch, set/profile, analyze) are covered. Minor gaps exist, like no batch operations or tool to clear watchlist, but the surface is largely complete for contract tracking.
