Search SAM.gov opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only' and the required date-range constraint, which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or auth/rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose and the hard requirement front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry more weight. It covers purpose, read-only status, and the required range, but omits pagination (offset/limit) behavior and any note on result shape, leaving an agent partially equipped.

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?

Schema coverage is high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters, and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the 'max 1 year' range constraint not present in the schema, but does not explain the undocumented offset parameter or clarify limit defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Search') and resource ('SAM.gov contract opportunities'), which naturally contrasts with the singular sibling get_opportunity. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives one concrete usage constraint — a posted date range is required and capped at 1 year — but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_opportunity or how list_set_aside_codes fits in. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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