analyze_solicitation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data lookup behavior, the possible return classifications, the evidence/gates output, and the key proof rule that missing evidence can never produce a confident fit. It does not cover edge cases like both text and notice_id being provided, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact and well structured: purpose first, then input modes, then output and behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema boilerplate.

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?

The description covers the main call flow, input alternatives, output taxonomy, and core behavioral rule even without an output schema. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained and does not clarify how they influence the assessment or what happens when conflicting inputs are supplied. It is usable but not fully complete.

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 needs to explain the parameters. It only clarifies text and notice_id, while source, set_aside, is_small_business, response_days_left, and value_estimate_usd are left to inference from their names and types. This is a significant gap for a tool with seven parameters.

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 identifies the tool as an evidence-backed small-business fit assessment and red-flag scan for solicitations. It names the exact output categories, making the tool's function and value unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on fit classification rather than general search or review.

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 input guidance: provide either a notice_id or pasted solicitation text, with notice_id sourced from live SAM.gov or the sample pool. This clearly implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly compare it to solicitation_review or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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