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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the shared daily budget, the option to supply a personal SAM.gov API key, and the 1-year maximum posting window. This helps set rate-limit and data-range expectations.

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 only three sentences: the first states the core purpose and filters, the second gives a direct usage trigger, and the third covers the budget/API key context. Every sentence adds value with no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filter dimensions, usage scenario, and rate-limit behavior well. It doesn't describe the response format or pagination behavior, but the detailed schema and annotations compensate. Slightly more detail on return values would push it higher.

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%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The main description adds a high-level summary of filterable fields and mentions the budget/key behavior, but does not significantly augment the per-parameter schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches active federal contract opportunities on SAM.gov, enumerates the specific notice types and filter dimensions, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_awards by emphasizing bidding opportunities and market intelligence. The verb 'search' plus the resource 'active federal contract opportunities' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'Call this when the user wants to find federal bidding opportunities or market intelligence on what agencies are buying.' This gives a clear use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to sibling tools like search_awards, which could cause ambiguity given the inclusion of award notices.

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