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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful access-related context by disclosing that several fields (incumbent contractor, past-offer counts, contract ceiling, win-probability scoring) require a RenovationRoute account, which helps an agent anticipate incomplete results or auth issues.

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 sentences deliver the core action, the required identifier, the returned data categories, and account-gated fields with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful guidance.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, which identifiers are accepted, and which fields are restricted by account level. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and set expectations about the result.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with type, length, examples, and accepted formats (SAM.gov ID or RenovationRoute UUID). The description reinforces that the ID identifies a federal opportunity but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific federal opportunity') and identifies the exact key ('by its SAM.gov notice ID'). It clearly separates this get-by-ID tool from the sibling search_opportunities, which is about finding opportunities rather than retrieving one known record.

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 the right usage context: call it when you already have a SAM.gov notice ID or RenovationRoute UUID for a specific opportunity. However, it does not explicitly state that search_opportunities should be used when the ID is unknown, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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