search_opportunities_for_businessRank open opportunities against the connected business profile with transparent reasons. This is not a win probability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| psc | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| set_aside | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior context: the tool produces a ranking with transparent reasons and is not a win probability. These are behavioral traits not captured in the annotations, though it does not disclose return format or pagination.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value: the verb, the target, the profile, the transparent reasons, and the explicit negation. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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?
Despite good annotations and a clear purpose, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain parameter usage, filter meanings, or the shape of the ranked results. The agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without additional context, especially since several sibling search tools exist.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. However, it does not describe any of the 7 parameters (e.g., q, psc, limit, naics, state, agency, set_aside). The general notion of 'connected business profile' gives some context, but the agent cannot infer the meaning of each filter without additional information.
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 ranks open opportunities against the connected business profile, using a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('open opportunities'). It also adds a distinctive feature ('with transparent reasons') and differentiates from related tools by noting it is not a win probability.
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 context by specifying the ranking against the connected business profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_opportunities or assess_opportunity_for_business. The negation 'This is not a win probability' hints at an exclusion, but no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
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.