find_recompetes_for_businessFind inferred recompete candidates across profile markets. Results are not confirmed solicitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond this: 'Results are not confirmed solicitations' warns that the output is inferred and potentially unverified. This is useful for the agent to set expectations and avoid over-trusting results, going beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'inferred' and 'not confirmed' are essential caveats, and 'across profile markets' scopes the tool. There is no filler or 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose and an important caveat about data confidence. It doesn't detail return structure, but with no output schema and a simple list-returning operation, that's acceptable. The description is complete enough for a low-complexity 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 input schema has one parameter, 'limit', with default/min/max constraints, but the description does not mention this parameter at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'limit' controls. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description still adds no semantics beyond the schema, and the rubric requires compensation for low coverage.
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 function: 'Find inferred recompete candidates across profile markets.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and identifies the resource ('recompete candidates') and scope ('across profile markets'). The qualifier 'inferred' and the note 'not confirmed solicitations' further illuminate the nature of the results, distinguishing this from a confirmed/recompete tool.
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 context via 'across profile markets,' suggesting this tool is for a connected business's own market areas. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over the sibling tool 'find_recompetes' or any other alternatives. It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is reasonably implied.
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.