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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot carry: a free key sees postings 48 hours late and only reaches back 14 days. Pagination/return-envelope behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and what each record contains. Slightly long, but every sentence contributes either scope, record content, or the freshness caveat.

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, return-field explanation is optional, and the description covers the important unknowns: freshness lag and 14-day depth for free keys, open-only filtering, and default ordering. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 sort, limit, naics, query, state and set_aside are all fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the concept (NAICS/PSC codes, set-asides, place of performance) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource (US federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov), defines it in plain terms ('the solicitations and notices federal agencies post when they want to buy'), and narrows scope to open opportunities. An agent can distinguish it from find_awards or find_businesses without opening any schema.

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?

Gives practical usage direction ('Link the record's url when you show it') and implicitly frames when it applies (open solicitations, sorted newest or by deadline). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as find_awards, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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