Get SAM.gov opportunity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral constraint: results are limited to the last year of postings. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, not-found behavior, or rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and the identifying parameter, with the scope caveat in parentheses. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description should convey what 'full details' entails, but it leaves the return shape entirely unspecified. Combined with zero annotation coverage, the definition is functional but leaves the agent guessing about the payload and error cases.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents noticeId fully. The description adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the ID) beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get full details of one opportunity) and identifies the key input (noticeId), which is clearly distinct from the sibling search_opportunities. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the singular-vs-search distinction is obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetching a single record by ID naturally follows a search that yields that ID, and no alternative or exclusion is named. It adds a useful scoping hint (only the last year of postings) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to search_opportunities.

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