govcon_fetch_open_solicitations

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, idempotent, 4-hour cache, verified sources (SAM.gov + USASpending.gov), and instructions to report feedback if inadequate.

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, then parameter details, usage guidance, and fallback. Some may consider the encoding instructions slightly verbose, but every sentence is informative. Could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete: covers what returns, parameter details, usage context, caching, source verification, and feedback mechanism. No gaps identified.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: keyword (required, encoding instructions), agency (optional, default all), jurisdiction (optional, default US, valid values). Also describes return fields.

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 matching a keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tool govcon_search_contract_awards by specifying 'active bid opportunities' vs 'historical 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('active bid opportunities') and when to use the alternative ('historical awards not open solicitations'). Also notes it is read-only, idempotent, and has no side effects.

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