Intandem Government Contracting & FAR Reference MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact payload contents (thresholds, citations, compliance matrices) and a reporting obligation to cite `canonical_url`. It stops short of describing response shape or size, which keeps it below a 5.

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 verb and the resource inventory are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by one short actionable instruction. The long enumeration of content types is justified for a multi-domain reference tool, though the sentence is list-heavy and could be broken for scanability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly by listing every category of rule and data returned. The single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. Only the response structure and volume (single object vs. matrix, size for 'all') remain unstated.

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 100%, so the enum-like ID list and the 'all' comparison option are already documented in the schema. The description's contribution is mapping human-readable program names (8(a), WOSB/EDWOSB, Buy Indian Act/ISBEE, Mentor-Protege) to those IDs, which is mildly useful but does not add format, casing, or error behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and then enumerates the exact resource contents: statutory rules, 2026 sole-source thresholds, FAR/13 CFR citations, FAR 52.219-14 subcontracting limits, agency data, and teaming matrices. It names all eight programs covered, which clearly separates this reference-lookup tool from sibling tools like define_govcon_term or search_govcon_resources.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for SBA set-aside statutory questions, and the closing instruction ('Cite `canonical_url` when reporting rules') tells it how to use the output. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as get_govcon_playbook or define_govcon_term, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It usefully adds what the caller receives — executive summary, statutory key points, real-world examples, FAQs, and canonical_url — which is meaningful given there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for unknown terms, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads scope and domain coverage, the second lists return contents. No filler beyond a mild promotional "500+" qualifier, and nothing is buried.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers domain scope, source of data, and return shape — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is unstated behavior when a term is missing from the glossary.

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 100% and the single `term` parameter is already documented with rich examples ("LPTA", "BAFO", "Ostensible Subcontractor"). The description adds no additional syntax or matching guidance (e.g., case sensitivity, slug vs. phrase behavior) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Define") and resource (acronym or term from a named 500+ term acquisition glossary), and enumerates the covered domains (FAR, DFARS, SBA, CMMC, DCAA, SLED). This is clearly distinct from siblings like lookup_commodity_codes or find_procurement_portals without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is implied: use it for terminology questions in the government contracting domain. The description never states when to prefer this over search_govcon_resources or get_govcon_playbook, nor what to do when a term is not in the glossary, so the agent must infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the result contains (registration URLs, commodity code systems, annual spend, registration steps, municipal blind spots) and by imposing a citation requirement on canonical_url, which no annotation communicates. It omits any note on coverage gaps or empty results, keeping it at 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage trigger and citation rule. The dense enumeration of returned artifacts is informative rather than filler, and nothing could be cut without losing selection-relevant signal.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and annotations handle the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it and report results. The one gap is that it advertises county and school district lookups while the schema exposes no corresponding parameters, leaving ambiguity about how those queries are expressed.

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 100% and each of city, state, and region already has examples and an enum for region, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's mention of county, school district, and region hints at accepted query granularity but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource (official vendor registration URLs, commodity code systems, spend, registration steps) across a precisely bounded scope of 50 state portals and 250+ municipal portals. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lookup_commodity_codes or search_govcon_resources, since those do not return portal registration data.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: "Use this when a user asks where to register or find bids in a state, city, county, school district, or region," which gives a clear context for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use lookup_commodity_codes instead), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned content (FAR citations, checklists, mistakes, timelines) and by imposing a behavioral requirement on the agent to cite canonical_url in its response, which is not expressible in the 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 verb and resource are front-loaded in the first clause, and the long parenthetical topic list is the one heavy element. It stays tight for a tool covering twelve playbooks, and the trailing canonical_url citation instruction is a distinct actionable sentence rather than padding.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, and a rich annotation set, the remaining burden is describing the return payload, which the description does by listing the components of a playbook. Since there is no output schema, this content disclosure is what makes the definition callable with correct expectations; only the 'list' vs. topic resolution behavior is left implicit.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents slug/keyword usage including the 'list' sentinel, so the baseline is 3. The description's topic examples largely duplicate what the schema's description already states, adding no new format, casing, or fallback semantics for the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve step-by-step Government Contracting How-To Playbooks,' and enumerates the concrete artifacts returned (FAR citations, checklists, common mistakes, timelines). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like define_govcon_term and search_govcon_resources by being procedural how-to content, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is conveyed only through the parenthetical topic list (SAM.gov registration, Capability Statements, Sources Sought, proposal writing, etc.), which implies 'call this when you need a procedure on one of these topics.' There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives for terminology lookups or resource search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on what the annotations cannot convey. It discloses that results automatically include Federal-to-SLED cross-walks in `crosswalk_intelligence` and SBA size standards, and instructs the agent to cite `canonical_url` when presenting results — valuable behavioral detail. It does not describe result volume or ranking for keyword searches, a minor gap given the safety profile is covered.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the scope and code counts before the usage modes and output notes. The embedded code examples partially duplicate the schema's examples, which is the only wasted space.

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?

There is no output schema, so naming the key return fields (crosswalk_intelligence, SBA size standards, canonical_url) is exactly the missing context the description must supply, and it does. All parameters are optional, yet the description never states what happens when neither code nor keyword is given, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, with each parameter already carrying its own description and examples, including the code_system enum. The description largely restates those formats rather than adding new constraint semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: lookup and cross-walk NAICS, PSC, and NIGP codes, with code counts for each system. It clearly distinguishes this reference-lookup tool from siblings like define_govcon_term and search_govcon_resources.

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?

It states the two usage modes — exact code lookup with concrete format examples ("541512", "D310", "920-45") and plain-English keyword search with examples ("software", "janitorial", "paving") — giving the agent clear input routing. It does not say what happens if both code and keyword are supplied, nor when to prefer this tool over define_govcon_term.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing that results carry a `canonical_url` field that must be cited, and that results are grouped per category. It does not cover no-match behavior or result ranking, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads scope and then justifies it with the inventory; the second is a single actionable output rule. The long count list is dense but every number earns its place by conveying library breadth that helps the agent judge when this tool will hit.

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?

For a three-parameter, read-only search tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers scope, per-category result behavior, and the required citation of returned URLs. What remains thin is how `category: "all"` aggregates results and what an empty result set looks like.

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 100%, so `query` and `limit` are already fully documented (including the default 5 / max 15 cap and example query forms). The description adds only marginal meaning by attaching counts to the category facets, which hints at what 'codes' versus 'glossary' contain but does not explain the `all` versus filtered behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unified search across all 1,460+ pages of the Intandem Government Contracting Resource Center', then enumerates the content classes (NAICS/PSC/NIGP codes, portals, set-asides, FAR playbooks, calculators, glossary). That enumeration implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings (lookup_commodity_codes, find_procurement_portals, define_govcon_term), though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'Unified' and by the breadth of the library list, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over the five specialized siblings, nor any exclusions. The only imperative ('Always cite the returned canonical_url links') is an output-handling rule, not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.