Get one SAM.gov solicitation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the abstention behavior when the number is not found within the window, and explains the rationale (distinguishing 'not in window' from 'does not exist'). This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error formats or return details.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds an important behavioral caveat. Every word 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?

The tool has three required parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and a critical edge case (abstention). It implies the return value ('retrieves a single notice'), which is acceptable. Missing explicit return format is a minor gap, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document all three fields. The description repeats the concept of a 'posted-date window' but adds no new syntax, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Retrieves' and the resource 'a single notice' by its solicitation number within a posted-date window. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_solicitations (which presumably does broad searches) and fetch_attachment (which handles attachments).

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for retrieving a single notice when you have the exact solicitation number and a specific date window. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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