assess_opportunity_for_businessCompare source-backed opportunity facts with the connected business profile without claiming eligibility or win odds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notice_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds that the tool compares facts and explicitly avoids claiming eligibility or win odds. However, it does not describe the output format or any other behavioral aspects, so transparency is moderate.
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 redundant information. It conveys the core purpose and constraints efficiently, making it well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details about the expected output or what the assessment includes. Given there is no output schema, the description should provide more context on the return value or the nature of the assessment. It also does not elaborate on how the 'connected business profile' is determined, leaving some gaps.
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 only parameter, notice_id, is mentioned in the schema but not described in the tool description. The description references opportunity facts but does not explicitly explain what notice_id refers to (e.g., an opportunity identifier). Schema coverage is minimal, so the description should have compensated, but it does not.
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's purpose: to assess an opportunity for a business by comparing source-backed facts with the business profile. It also specifies what it does not do (claim eligibility or win odds), making it distinct from related tools like get_opportunity or search_opportunities_for_business.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only hints at a limitation (no eligibility/win odds claims), but lacks guidance on conditions or scenarios that would warrant its use over sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.