sam_fetch_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output format (plain text) and use cases but does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, error handling for invalid noticeId, rate limits, or potential data size. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that fetches potentially large content.

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, no fluff, information is front-loaded: verb, resource, output format, use cases. Every word adds 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 the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, output format, and use cases. It lacks details on error behavior or non-existent descriptions, but overall completeness is adequate for the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's '32-char hex notice id'. It meets the baseline but does not improve 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 clearly specifies the tool returns the full description/RFP body text as plain text, using a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'full description / RFP body text for a notice'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sam_get_opportunity by noting when that sibling returns a URL instead of inline body.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when sam_get_opportunity returned a description URL instead of inline body, or for an LLM-friendly text dump'. It provides context and mentions a sibling tool, but does not explicitly state 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.