get_opportunity_documentsList current public SAM attachments with official external download links and links to published untrusted plain-text chunks when available. Raw binaries are not proxied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notice_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it notes that raw binaries are not proxied and that the plain-text chunks are 'untrusted', which informs the agent about link reliability. It also scopes to 'current public' attachments, giving a temporal constraint. This adds value beyond the annotation profile.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about raw binaries is an efficient second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and outcomes (types of links returned, non-proxying). It does not explain the parameter or potential error conditions, but these are minor given the low complexity. It is mostly complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the `notice_id` parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory (likely an opportunity notice ID), the description does not explicitly state that `notice_id` identifies the opportunity whose documents should be listed. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'public SAM attachments', and adds details on what it returns (external download links and plain-text chunks) and a caveat (raw binaries not proxied). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_opportunity or get_opportunity_extracted by focusing on attachments and download links.
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 tool is for retrieving attachment/download links for a given opportunity, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough given the focus on documents, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.