SBIR/STTR Topic Radar: Open Topics, Deadlines & DoD Q&A

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the economics an agent cannot infer: $0.003 per topic, free runs on zero results, per-call spend cap via run_max_charge_usd ($0.50 default), and the trap that raising maxResults can bill more than is returned. It also discloses latency (5-15 s typical, minutes for crawls), the 300 s timeout ceiling, extra page fetches for includeDetails/includeDodQa, and the {actor, count, items} return envelope — none of which is in 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?

Front-loading is strong: purpose, then sibling differentiation, then exclusions, then parameter tips, then a separate Behavior block for billing and latency. Some sentences duplicate structured fields — the $0.50 cap, the 50-item default, and the 300 s max are all in the schema — which makes the block denser than necessary, though nearly every sentence still carries routing or billing value.

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 12-parameter, zero-required, actor-wrapping tool with no output schema and real per-item cost, the description covers purpose, alternatives, cost model, timing, failure recovery ('raise run_timeout_secs ... or shrink the input after a timeout error'), and even enumerates returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and individual parameter meaning is already documented. The description earns extra credit for cross-parameter interactions the schema does not state: empty keywords plus filters yields a large set, includeDetails/includeDodQa cost time but not money ('same price'), and run_max_items fills maxResults when unset. It stops short of a 5 because much of the parameter prose restates schema text rather than adding new semantics.

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 ('Find SBIR and STTR solicitation topics across agencies') and enumerates the return payload (close dates, days left, topic numbers, official links, DoD Q&A status, TPOC). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, grants_finder and federal_contract_finder, so an agent can route correctly without comparing 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('a small business or research partner needs open SBIR/STTR topics, deadlines or a TPOC to contact') and explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative for each exclusion ('Do not use for general grants (use grants_finder) or for past contract winners (use federal_contract_finder)'). It also supplies tactical guidance per parameter, e.g. keep maxResults low with empty keywords, and use status=closed for historical funding patterns.

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