search_awardsSearch the selected hot award dataset by award, recipient, agency, classification, place, dates, and value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| psc | No | ||
| piid | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| award_id | No | ||
| action_to | No | ||
| set_aside | No | ||
| action_from | No | ||
| parent_piid | No | ||
| solicitation | No | ||
| recipient_uei | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds context about the dataset being 'public' and 'selected', but does not mention pagination via cursor, default limit, or result format. No contradiction with 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. However, the phrase 'selected hot award dataset' is vague and could be more precise without adding length.
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?
With 15 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain how results are returned, how pagination works (cursor, limit), or how the listed facets map to parameters. A tool of this complexity requires more behavioral detail.
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 schema has 15 parameters with zero descriptions, and the description only gives a high-level list of facets without mapping them to specific parameter names like piid, psc, or naics. It also mentions 'value' but no corresponding parameter exists in the schema, which could mislead. It does not sufficiently compensate for the schema's lack of parameter semantics.
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 action ('Search') and the resource ('selected hot award dataset'), and lists the search dimensions (award, recipient, agency, classification, place, dates, and value). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on awards, though the term 'hot' is vague and could be clearer.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_opportunities or search_vendors. The description implies it is for award data, but it does not provide exclusions or alternative tool references.
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.