Search Contracts

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds significant behavioral context: FY2025 data coverage floor, silent clamping of date_from rather than rejection, the response's window block disclosure, and the returned award_id_piid chaining behavior. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is dense but well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a clear sibling routing note, a concise bullet list for parameters, and focused paragraphs for coverage edge cases and chaining. Every section earns its place and the most important usage information 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 15-parameter, zero-required-parameter search tool with no inline schema descriptions, the description covers the important semantics, edge-case behavior, pagination limit, return-field guidance, and integration with related tools. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, and the chaining hints further reduce ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and delivers it comprehensively: exact 12-char uei, exact PIID, parent_piid semantics, agency substring, exact 6-digit NAICS, award_type_code values, YYYY-MM-DD date format, amount field mapping, sort_by options with default, sort_order values, and limit max. Only offset is not described, but the breadth and precision of the remaining parameter semantics are strong enough for a top score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search FPDS prime contract transactions,' and further characterizes it as the 'comprehensive, authoritative award record.' It explicitly names sibling tools (search_awards, search_vehicles) and distinguishes this tool from them, so an agent can tell them apart without opening their schemas.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'For the sparse SAM Award Notice slice specifically, use search_awards instead' and contrasts search_vehicles as 'NOT floored this way.' It also explains downstream chaining to get_contract/get_contract_modifications/get_contract_vehicle, which helps an agent choose this tool as an entry point.

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