lookup_referenceSearch or retrieve NAICS, PSC, FAR, SBA size-standard, set-aside, or agency reference data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| id | No | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'Search or retrieve' behavior and reference type scope, which is consistent but minimal beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, listing the scope efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple and read-only with strong annotations, and the type enumeration helps. However, the description does not clarify how to use q and id together or separately, nor does it mention any constraints like requiring one of them, which leaves a moderate gap for autonomous invocation.
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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It adds human-readable labels for the type enum (e.g., 'SBA size-standard' for 'sba_size_standard'), but does not explain the q vs id distinction or limit semantics beyond what property names imply.
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 uses specific verbs 'Search or retrieve' and enumerates reference types (NAICS, PSC, FAR, etc.), clearly distinguishing from sibling search tools that focus on awards, opportunities, or vendors.
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 by listing reference categories but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool references. The agent must infer that this tool is for reference lookups rather than award/opportunity searches.
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.