Search SAM.gov solicitations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so effectively by adding non-obvious details: required date format and span limit, return of normalized notices with attachment links, and a warning that the returned count differs from totalRecords across all pages. This is valuable transparency, though it omits error behavior or pagination semantics beyond the count.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints and then return/count behavior. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of schema info.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, mandatory date window restrictions, return format, and a pagination count caveat. It does not detail how filters like limit/offset interact with the count, but those are covered by the schema descriptions, so the overall package is quite complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that postedFrom/postedTo are required and at most one year apart—a rule not defined in the schema. It also hints at output semantics ('normalised notices'), which complements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Searches federal contract opportunities in a posted-date window.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_solicitation (retrieves a specific one) and attachment tools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately identifiable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (search within a posted-date window) and states hard requirements (postedFrom and postedTo required, MM/dd/yyyy, at most one year apart). It does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools, but the usage constraints and scenario are clear, so only a slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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