List SAM.gov Codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns codes, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on whether the list is static or dynamic, how often updated, or any other traits. Adequate but not transparent beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and output. Front-loaded and efficient, with zero filler.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the resource type and relationship to a sibling tool. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of strings), which would help an agent fully utilize the output.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by specifying the kind of codes (procurement type and set-aside), which is beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it.

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 specifies 'Return common SAM.gov procurement type and set-aside codes' and clarifies their use in the opportunity search tool, distinguishing this tool from siblings like sam_opportunities_search (which returns opportunities, not codes). This provides a clear, specific purpose.

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 mentions the codes are 'used by the opportunity search tool', implying a preparatory role, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, limiting guidance.

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