sam_lookup_notice_fields

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

The description discloses all critical behaviors beyond annotations: off-by-default, honest error handling (no fake data), freshness meta, index warming, structured error messages, and 24h lag. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context about caching, failures, and return behavior.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections (BATCH, OFF BY DEFAULT, HONEST). Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool's behavior.

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 complexity (batch enrichment, caching, off-by-default), the description covers all necessary context: why it exists, how to enable, behavior when disabled, freshness, error handling, and limitations (24h lag). No output schema exists, but the description hints at returned fields. This is fully adequate for the agent to use correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'noticeIds' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including constraints (1-100, 32-char hex). The description adds context about batch completion of a search page and the enrichment details, going beyond the schema. However, the schema already provides the essential constraints, so the description adds marginal value.

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 that this tool is a batch enrichment for notice IDs from a CSV cache, completing fields that are null in sam_search_opportunities results. It explicitly distinguishes from sam_get_opportunity by noting it avoids one-per-notice calls. The verb 'BATCH-complete' and resource 'a sam_search_opportunities page' are specific and 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (batch enrichment of a search page) and when not (real-time-critical fields should use sam_get_opportunity). It also details how to enable the tool (setting environment variables) and what happens when disabled. This clearly differentiates from siblings like sam_get_opportunity and sam_search_opportunities.

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