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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is a search returning specific fields and includes a cost per row. However, it does not state if the operation is read-only, whether any side effects exist, or rate limits. The 'search' verb implies safety, but it's not explicit.

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 informative and front-loaded with a clear question. It briefly lists components and target audience. While it could be slightly shorter, it remains efficient and well-structured without unnecessary 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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the domain, available filters, and expected return fields. It mentions pagination via offset but does not elaborate on result set limits beyond the 'limit' parameter. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds context around the available filters (e.g., set-aside codes) but does not provide additional semantics beyond listing them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states it searches for VA solicitations from SAM.gov, with specific filters like keyword, NAICS, set-aside, state, and posted date. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing exclusively on the VA contract-opportunity pipeline, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Indicates it is a VA-focused slice of SAM.gov, implying it should be used for VA-related solicitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus broader alternatives like govcon_opportunity_search or mention when not to use it.

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