get_opportunity_briefGet a bounded, source-backed response decision brief with deadline status, fit signals, requirements, submission facts, changes, market evidence, and documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notice_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'bounded' and 'source-backed' which hints at scope and evidence, but doesn't detail pagination, data freshness, or what happens if the notice_id is invalid. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that front-loads the key qualifiers ('bounded, source-backed') and lists the brief's contents. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the list of content areas is somewhat long.
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 complexity (a comprehensive brief with multiple content areas) and the lack of an output schema, the description gives a good overview but doesn't specify the structure or format of the response. The single parameter is simple, and annotations cover safety, so the description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 0%, but there is only one parameter (notice_id) with a minLength of 1. The description doesn't explain what notice_id refers to (e.g., a government opportunity ID), but the tool name and context make it inferable. Since the schema is minimal and the description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning, a baseline 3 is fair.
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 returns a 'bounded, source-backed response decision brief' with specific content areas (deadline status, fit signals, requirements, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('opportunity decision brief'), and the content list distinguishes it from siblings like get_opportunity or get_opportunity_changes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 this is for decision-making on an opportunity, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus get_opportunity, get_opportunity_extracted, or search_opportunities. The content list suggests a comprehensive brief, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
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.