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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that data is 'from SAM.gov (refreshed daily)' and limited to 'Open' opportunities, but omits authentication needs, result limits beyond the schema, pagination behavior, and return format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, source, freshness, and searchable facets with zero wasted words.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how multiple filters combine, whether results are paginated, or what the response looks like. It is adequate given the rich parameter schema but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description echoes the available facets but does not add syntax, precedence, or combination rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific resource ('Open federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov') and search facets. However, it does not distinguish this plural search tool from the singular sibling 'sam_opportunity', so an agent cannot tell their roles apart without opening schemas.

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 usage by listing filterable facets ('search by keyword, NAICS, set-aside, state, agency and deadline'), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not clarify why to choose this over 'sam_opportunity' or other federal-award tools.

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