sam_opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. It only restates the search and filter capabilities, which are already visible in the schema.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key filters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a straightforward read-only search tool with fully documented optional parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core use case and filter options, though it does not describe the return format; this is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear descriptions for all six parameters (e.g., 'Posted before (MM/DD/YYYY)', 'Set-aside type: SBA, 8A, HUBZone...'). The description merely lists the same filter types without adding extra meaning, so it aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 'Search federal contract opportunities on SAM.gov', using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('federal contract opportunities on SAM.gov'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sam_entities and sam_exclusions, which also cover SAM.gov but different data types.

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 implies usage for finding federal contract opportunities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sam_entities or USAspending tools. It offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so while the context is clear, guidance is limited.

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