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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world search, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one behavioral addition—clarifying that 'active' means source status, not an open deadline—is genuinely useful but largely repeats the schema description for the `active` parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded in the first clause and the single caveat trailing it. No filler, no redundancy in structure.

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?

With an output schema present and all nine parameters fully documented, the description needn't explain return values; the annotation set covers safety. It is nearly complete, only missing sibling routing and any mention of pagination intent (after/limit), which the schema handles.

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 100%, so every parameter (q, naics, state, set_aside, agency, generation, after, limit) is already documented. The description only lists filter categories at a high level and adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Find) plus resource (official opportunity records) and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'search' or 'research_opportunity', which likely overlap, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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 only guidance is a caveat ('Active does not imply the deadline is open'), which tells the agent how to interpret a flag, not when to use this tool versus siblings. With 'search', 'research_opportunity', and 'detail' in the sibling set, the absence of any routing advice is a real gap.

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