opportunity_details

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits: live SAM.gov fallback to sample pool and sensitive/noisy fields gated behind detail=true. However, it leaves ambiguity around how detail is set since the input schema does not include a detail parameter, and it says nothing about error behavior or response shape.

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 entire description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant caveats. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It fails to clarify the detail=true mechanism, the accepted values of source, what happens when a notice_id has no match, or what the full structured record looks like. This leaves an agent with important gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Notice_id is clearly explained as the lookup key, and the live/sample pool note vaguely relates to the source parameter. But the source parameter itself is never explicitly described, and detail=true is mentioned without being a property in the input schema, creating confusion about whether it is a request parameter or a response characteristic.

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 uses a specific phrase 'Full structured record for one opportunity by notice id' that clearly identifies both the resource type and the lookup scope. It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_opportunities tool by emphasizing a single record rather than a search result set.

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 implies a clear use case: use this tool when you need a complete record for a specific opportunity identified by notice_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by notice id' qualifier provides enough context to distinguish it from search-oriented siblings.

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