predict_recompete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states that the tool is deterministic and free, and it explicitly warns that expiration/option signals may lag based on reported data. This fully discloses behavioral traits without contradiction.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action and data source. Every sentence adds value: purpose, enrichment options, caveat. No extraneous text.

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 moderate complexity (nested filters, optional enrichment, pagination, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: data source, filtering capabilities, enrichment feature, pagination, determinism, and data timeliness caveat. With an output schema available, return value details are not required in the description.

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 schema documents all parameters. However, the description adds meaning by summarizing filter types (NAICS, PSC, state, value, keywords) and mentioning return fields (days-until-expiration, urgency). It also implies default values for minContractValue and expirationWindowDays, supplementing the schema.

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's purpose: discovering federal contracts expiring within a window (recompete opportunities) using USAspending data. It specifies key filtering dimensions and optional enrichment, making the action and resource unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the verb 'Discover' and specific context (recompete) set it apart adequately.

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 when to use the tool (for recompete opportunities) and mentions it is deterministic and free, which suggests it's appropriate for cost-sensitive queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings like 'find_incumbents' or 'score_go_no_go'.

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