save_opportunity_searchSave a federal opportunity search and choose its alert cadence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| cadence | No | daily | |
| enabled | No | ||
| search_spec | Yes | ||
| delivery_channels | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the annotations, which already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. It fails to disclose potential side effects, such as whether saving creates a duplicate or overwrites an existing search, and what happens to delivery channels when enabled is false. Given the idempotentHint is false, an agent would benefit from knowing the implications of repeated calls.
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, front-loading the core action and the optional cadence choice. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or excess structure.
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 has five parameters but the description only covers saving and cadence, omitting important configuration options like delivery channels and enabled status. With no output schema, the description also fails to specify what the tool returns or how success is indicated, making the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It addresses 'name', 'search_spec' implicitly, and 'cadence' explicitly, but remains silent on 'enabled' and 'delivery_channels'. It also does not explain the structure of 'search_spec', leaving several parameters unclear.
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 creates a saved opportunity search with an optional alert cadence, using the specific verb 'save' and resource 'federal opportunity search'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_saved_search' by implying a new creation, and from 'search_opportunities' by focusing on saving rather than executing a search.
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 for saving a new search and setting cadence, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'update_saved_search' or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool names, so guidance is only 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.