search_opportunitiesSearch public opportunity data by text, classification, buyer, location, status, and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| psc | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| set_aside | No | ||
| awardee_uei | No | ||
| notice_type | No | ||
| awardee_cage | No | ||
| posted_preset | No | ||
| deadline_preset | No | ||
| awarded_contractor_name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that data is 'public', which may imply no authentication, but it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or return format. This is acceptable given the annotations but adds only modest value.
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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose and scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.
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?
This is a complex search tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a one-sentence overview. It omits critical details such as how filters combine, pagination behavior, result structure, or sorting options, leaving the agent under-informed for correct 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?
The description provides high-level categories (text, classification, buyer, location, status, dates) that loosely map to some parameters, but with 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, it is insufficient. There is no explanation of specific parameters like q, sort, cursor, set_aside, or awardee_uei, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 searches public opportunity data with specific filter dimensions (text, classification, buyer, location, status, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_awards and search_vendors, which target different entity types.
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 when to use the tool (searching opportunity data) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools, there is no direct comparison or exclusion, so usage context is only implicitly conveyed.
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.