usas_search_expiring_contracts

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds that it is a thin backward-compatible alias and returns the legacy { contracts, searchedCount } shape, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, extremely concise, with the deprecation warning front-loaded. No unnecessary information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 deprecated alias tool, the description covers deprecation, recommendation, legacy return shape, and basic functionality. It does not detail all parameters or output fully, but given the tool's limited role, it is sufficiently complete with the sibling tool handling new use cases.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at agency, NAICS, and monthsUntilExpiry via usage context, but does not explain limit, minAwardValue, or provide any specific parameter details. Inadequate compensation for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for usas_search_recompetes, explains it finds contracts by agency and NAICS expiring within N months, and distinguishes it from the recommended sibling tool by noting the legacy return shape.

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 'DEPRECATED — use usas_search_recompetes' and advises new callers to use usas_search_recompetes for full controls and truthful metadata, providing clear when-to-use (backward compatibility) and when-not-to-use (new callers) guidance.

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