gov_edge_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions urgency flags (≤14 days) but omits other behaviors such as auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or cost implications. The AI BD briefing mention is a feature, not a behavioral trait.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then lists returns and filters efficiently. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Given an output schema exists (though not provided), the description adequately summarizes returns. However, it fails to mention the 'days_back' parameter or any prerequisites (e.g., API access). The gap in parameter coverage reduces completeness for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers 'keyword', 'naics', and 'set_aside' (including example values), but omits the 'days_back' parameter entirely. This partial coverage leaves a meaningful gap.

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 searches active federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov and lists specific returned fields (deadlines, urgency flags, agency, NAICS code, set-aside type, AI BD briefing), making its purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'gov_edge' or 'contract_check'.

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 lists filters (keyword, naics, set_aside) and hints at use cases for searching opportunities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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