govbid-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is informational ('Get metadata') and implies safe initialization behavior through 'Call this first,' but it does not describe the response format, error cases, or whether any setup is required. This is adequate for a trivial no-parameter discovery call, but still leaves some behavior unspecified.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second states the intended invocation order. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter API-info tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact resource, the kind of data (metadata), and the recommended temporal placement ('first'). A slightly richer description of what subset of metadata is returned would make it fully complete, but this is enough for an agent to select and call it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('metadata about the GovBid Global API'), and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that deal with opportunities. It is immediately obvious what this tool is for and that it is not for retrieving opportunity data.

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?

'Call this first' is explicit sequencing guidance that tells the agent this is the entry point before using the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a metadata/discovery tool with zero parameters, this is clear and practical usage direction.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'direct URL' are enough to convey a read-like lookup, but the description does not clarify error behavior, whether a missing notice_id produces anything, or whether the tool simply constructs the URL without contacting SAM.gov.

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 with no wasted words. It states the core operation and the returned artifact immediately.

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 one-parameter, read-oriented tool, the description covers the essential task and return value sufficiently. It lacks edge-case details, but the simplicity of the operation and clear identification of notice_id make it adequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 only parameter, notice_id, has no schema description, so the description's mention of 'a specific contract opportunity' adds relevant meaning. Still, it could be richer by explaining where the notice_id comes from or giving an example, since schema coverage is zero.

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 ('Get') and resource ('direct SAM.gov URL for a specific contract opportunity'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from search_opportunities by focusing on a single, specific contract and returning a direct URL rather than a list of opportunities.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the direct SAM.gov URL for a particular opportunity identified by notice_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, leaving some guidance to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description has the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's purpose. It does not mention the need for a valid API key, whether the operation is read-only, or whether rate limits, pagination, or external SAM.gov behaviors apply.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise and structured well, though it trades completeness for brevity.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides only the broad domain and leaves out how inputs are used and what a response looks like. It is skeletal for the complexity present.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The agent must infer the meaning of api_key, days, limit, and department from parameter names alone, with no author-provided semantics.

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 states a specific verb (Search), a resource (U.S. federal government contract opportunities), and a source (SAM.gov), so an agent knows this is a search/find operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_opportunity_detail, though the names make that differentiation mostly inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_opportunity_detail or get_api_info. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditional use cases are mentioned, so the agent must rely on inference from sibling names.

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