govcon_fetch_open_solicitations

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), it adds caching behavior (4-hour cache), data source transparency (SAM.gov + USASpending.gov), and encoding requirements for the keyword parameter. No contradictions with 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, parameter list, return fields, usage guidance, and fallback. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (1 required param, 3 optional, output schema exists), the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, usage, caching, sources, and even a gap reporting mechanism. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description adds encoding guidance for the keyword parameter and clarifies defaults. It also explains the return fields, providing useful context beyond schema descriptions.

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 fetches currently open government contract solicitations by keyword. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool govcon_search_contract_awards by specifying historical awards vs. open solicitations.

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 when-to-use ('when looking for active bid opportunities') and when-not-to-use ('use govcon_search_contract_awards instead when you need historical awards'), plus a fallback feedback mechanism.

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