Get Office Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is low. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 404 when no FPDS activity exists, 503 during index building with retry guidance, and 'Free on every plan.' This meaningfully helps an agent handle edge cases.

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?

The description is tight and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a usage line, a parameter definition, and an error-handling note. No filler; each sentence adds necessary information and the most important behavioral context is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the main needs: what it returns, when to use it, where the parameter comes from, and expected errors. No significant gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides no description for office_code (0% schema coverage), but the tool description compensates by defining it as the office's FPDS office code and giving concrete sources: discover_offices or a contract/award record. This is sufficient for the single required 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one contracting office's full buying profile' and lists the content (obligations, competition, set-aside lean, NAICS codes). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by emphasizing the office-level, cross-NAICS scope as opposed to single-NAICS tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this after discover_offices or when you already have an office_code from a contract/award record. It also states the scope as the office's 'ENTIRE buying pattern, not just one NAICS,' which implies when not to use it and distinguishes it from narrower alternatives.

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