get_watch_statusRead connected-account searches, pursuits, award or vendor watches, and recompete radars. Requires OAuth and never changes a watch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the OAuth requirement and explicitly states 'never changes a watch,' reinforcing the read-only behavior beyond what annotations provide. This adds useful context without contradicting the annotations.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose and a key requirement. No filler or redundancy; every word serves to inform the agent.
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 read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what it reads and its prerequisites. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it, given the annotations and the absence of complex inputs or outputs.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously) and the description adds no param-specific details, but since none exist, this is appropriate and meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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: reading watches and related items. It uses the verb 'Read' and specifies the resources (searches, pursuits, award/vendor watches, recompete radars), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update or save watches.
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: it reads all watch types but does not mention when to use it over specific get_* tools. It implies it is the general read tool but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions, though the listed resource types give a strong hint.
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.