usas_search_expiring_contracts

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

Discloses key behaviors: end-date sorted, top 10 by value, and filtering by agency, NAICS, and monthsUntilExpiry. Lacks details on other parameters like minAwardValue and fiscalYear, but does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 with no wasted words. The second sentence provides highly actionable examples, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case well but does not explain return format or all parameters. Could add details on output or additional filters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for three of six parameters (agency, naics, monthsUntilExpiry) and implies limit with 'top 10 by value', but omits minAwardValue and fiscalYear. Sufficient for core use case.

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 it finds federal contracts expiring within N months, filtered by agency and NAICS. It includes concrete usage examples that differentiate it from sibling tools like usas_search_awards.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'what VA cloud contracts are up for recompete') and implies this tool is specifically for expiring contracts, not general award search, guiding appropriate invocation.

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