track_opportunityAdd or replace one tracked opportunity and its next action in the connected account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| notice_id | Yes | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| alert_cadence | No | immediate | |
| pursuit_state | No | watching | |
| delivery_channels | No | ||
| source_profile_id | No | ||
| next_action_due_at | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool operates on the 'connected account' and includes 'next action' semantics. It does not contradict annotations and builds on the idempotent nature with 'add or replace'.
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?
One concise sentence that quickly conveys the primary action. No redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context such as what happens when the opportunity already exists, and does not clarify the relationship with update_tracked_opportunity.
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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at two parameters ('tracked opportunity' and 'next action'). With 9 parameters including enums and defaults, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving many parameters unexplained.
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 a specific verb 'Add or replace' with a clear resource ('one tracked opportunity and its next action') and context ('in the connected account'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling update_tracked_opportunity by implying an upsert operation.
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 when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The presence of update_tracked_opportunity as a sibling suggests a distinction between adding/replacing and updating, but the description does not articulate when to choose this tool over that one. Usage is only implied by the name and action.
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.