Get Opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by detailing the returned content (agency, contacts, description, attachments, award data, 50+ fields), which is beyond the annotations. It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 two tight sentences, front-loading the action and target, then listing return highlights. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate every field; it highlights representative content (agency, contacts, attachments, award data) and notes 50+ fields. For a simple fetch operation with all annotations and a schema, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter notice_id has zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. The description explains it is the identifier for a contract opportunity but does not clarify its format (e.g., alphanumeric pattern, length). This is a minimal but acceptable compensation for a single self-explanatory parameter.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'single contract opportunity' identified by 'notice_id'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_opportunities by specifying it returns one record, not a search result.

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 intended use case is implied: use when you have a specific notice_id and need the full record. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as for searching or bulk retrieval. Some guidance on the required parameter format would help.

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