Get Protests On Solicitation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral context: the whole GAO case resolution, docket spelling normalization, pre-computed booleans, and the earliest_open_due_date semantics. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: the lead sentence states scope, the return fields are listed with usage advice, and the surprising GAO docket behavior is explained in a final paragraph. There is no filler or repetition of structured metadata.

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 tool, the description covers input sourcing, return-field semantics, pre-computed flags to check first, deadline meaning, and the cross-docket edge case. Even with an output schema present, the description still summarizes the return behavior usefully and is complete for safe invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. It explains that solicitation_number comes from three named search tools, identifies a solicitation, and that GAO spelling variants still resolve to the complete case set. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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: it gets every protest filed on ONE solicitation, including pending protests and the statutory GAO decision deadline. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like search_protests and from single-record tools like get_contract.

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 tells the agent where to source the solicitation_number from (search_opportunities, search_contracts, or search_protests), instructs it to check any_open and any_sustained before scanning the protests list, and labels the tool as Award & Compliance/Pro only. It does not explicitly name search_protests as the alternative for broader queries, but the scoping language makes the intended use case clear.

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