find_incumbents

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is deterministic, free, and handles FPDS failures gracefully (USAspending data remains intact). This is useful for an agent understanding side effects and reliability.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose and data sources, and every sentence provides valuable information. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, multiple outputs), the description covers purpose, outputs, data sources, and failure behavior. An output schema exists for return values, so additional detail is not critical. Lacks explicit prerequisites beyond NAICS (already in schema), but that is acceptable.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool identifies likely current incumbent(s) for a solicitation using specified public data sources. It specifies the output (incumbent name, award value, period of performance, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_solicitation or predict_recompete.

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 implies usage for finding incumbents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools.

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