Get SAM.gov opportunity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by noting that descriptions are links, attachments are not downloaded, an exact-once match is required or it is an error, and the returned text is untrusted third-party content that should never be followed as instructions. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but the behavioral warnings are significantly stronger than typical.

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 three sentences, each carrying non-redundant information. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by data-freshness caveats and then the critical security warning.

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-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains scope, error conditions, and safety warnings. It could more explicitly route agents away from search_opportunities or mention the general shape of the returned record, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already covers the sole parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about where noticeId comes from ('as returned by the search API') and its temporal scope ('postings from the last year'), but it does not add format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the notice record for one noticeId') and scopes it to postings from the last year. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_opportunities by emphasizing a single exact noticeId lookup, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or contrast their roles.

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 context is implied: this tool is for retrieving one specific notice record, likely after using search_opportunities. The description also provides a precondition ('record must match the requested noticeId exactly once') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling search or list tools.

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