search_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavioral note: 'Returns typed results distinguishing no-match from an upstream failure,' which helps an agent interpret failures correctly. It also notes the beta.SAM.gov source, but does not cover rate limits, authentication, or pagination.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core action and source before enumerating filters. Every sentence adds value, and the filter list is dense without being padded. It avoids repeating schema field names verbatim and stays appropriately short for its complexity.

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?

Given 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers most essential invocation concerns: what is searched, the source, available filters, and result behavior. The 'source' parameter is left unexplained and limit behavior is not described, but the presence of an output schema partially reduces the need to document return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful format and unit context for many parameters: set-aside values, NAICS code length, state as 2-letter, value range in USD, and response-deadline window. It omits semantics for 'limit' and 'source,' which remain ambiguous aside from their schema defaults.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search federal contract opportunities (beta.SAM.gov).' It names a specific verb, resource, and lists the major filter dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opportunity_details or market_snapshot_tool, but the search framing is distinguishable enough.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. It lists filters but does not explain when a search would be preferred over look_up_naics, opportunity_details, or market_snapshot_tool. This leaves usage context entirely implied.

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