opportunity_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly succeeds by enumerating all supported code mappings. It does not specify behavior for unknown or case-variant codes or the return format, but the mapping itself makes the tool's behavior largely transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact table of code mappings. Every line carries information, and there is 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note about return format or invalid-code handling, but the low complexity means an agent can invoke it correctly with the information provided.

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 provides zero description coverage for the single 'code' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by listing every accepted code and its meaning, which gives the agent everything it needs to construct a valid input.

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 and resource: 'Explain a SAM.gov opportunity type (ptype) code.' It then supplies the full code-to-label map, which clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from siblings like search_opportunities or look_up_naics.

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 is implied: an agent should use this tool when it has a ptype code and needs its official meaning. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related lookups such as NAICS or set-aside codes.

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