govcon_fetch_open_solicitations

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

With no annotations, the description covers data freshness (4-hour cache), token efficiency, and verified sources. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or behavior on no results.

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 concise sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff, and includes key details like freshness and efficiency.

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 an output schema present, the description covers returned fields, sources, caching, and efficiency. It lacks error handling or empty result behavior, but is generally complete for a fetch tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning via the example and mentions jurisdictions. It clarifies keyword, agency, and jurisdiction roles but could explicitly define each 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 clearly states the tool fetches open solicitations matching a keyword, specifies returned fields, and lists verified sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like govcon_search_contract_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?

The description implies usage for open solicitations and gives an example, but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over alternatives like govcon_search_contract_awards or govcon_fetch_vendor_contract_history.

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