Get SAM.gov Opportunity Detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the need for an API key in live mode and the dryRun parameter for sample data. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or response behavior, which are gaps in transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, key parameter, and a precondition. Could expand on expected response or error scenarios, but is sufficient for a basic lookup 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already clearly describes noticeId and dryRun. The description reinforces the purpose but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states it looks up one SAM.gov opportunity by notice ID, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sam_opportunities_search, which searches multiple 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 indicates usage context: for a single opportunity by notice ID, and notes that live mode requires an API key. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for bulk search).

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