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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the response includes GovGazette and official source links, and notes it returns a single opportunity, but does not disclose further behavioral details like error cases or data freshness, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids restating the tool name or title.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the required input, and what links are included in the result. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the return nature. Given the low complexity, nothing essential 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by notice ID' and 'SAM.gov' which adds domain context to the otherwise generic notice_id parameter, but it does not provide format, example, or source for obtaining the ID. This is marginal but adequate for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 retrieves a single SAM.gov opportunity by notice ID and includes GovGazette and official source links. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_opportunity_changes or get_opportunity_documents by focusing on the base opportunity 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 phrase 'by notice ID' clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a specific opportunity when the ID is known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over search tools.

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