Search Protests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destroy. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: 'Factual, never scored', the performance-stay implication of status=Open, and the fact that each result includes a solicitation number for follow-up. No contradiction with 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 purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is a tight bulleted list with no filler. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified given 12 parameters with zero schema descriptions.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core filters and provides a sibling handoff. Yet five parameters remain effectively undocumented in both the schema and description, so an agent may not know the expected format or semantics for agency, filed_from, filed_to, offset, and case_type.

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 burden. It explains protester versus search, the full-text coverage of search, case_number format, outcome/status enums, sort values, and limit max. However, agency, filed_from, filed_to, offset, and case_type are only listed without added meaning, leaving a partial gap.

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 precise action and resource: 'Search GAO bid protests: who protested, on which solicitation, when, and the outcome.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_protests_on_solicitation by telling the agent to pass a solicitation number to that tool for every protest on the same procurement.

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 clear usage context, such as calling status=Open the live set and recommending outcome=Sustained for protests that disturbed an award. It also routes the agent to get_protests_on_solicitation for broader lookup on a single procurement, though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus other siblings.

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