get_solicitation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds 'Deterministic, free — pulls from SAM.gov's public opportunity records,' reinforcing idempotency and clarifying the public source. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returning fields. No wasteful wording; every sentence adds information.

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 complete schema coverage, clear annotations, and a detailed output schema (not shown but known), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and workflow integration. No gaps remain.

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%. The description adds value by explaining the primary/favored status of noticeId and the best-effort fallback of solicitationNumber, beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single SAM.gov solicitation by notice ID or solicitation number, listing returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the workflow entry point and naming downstream tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (as the entry point for a workflow feeding into score_go_no_go, find_incumbents, or find_partners_near). Does not contrast with all siblings like balance or lookup_neco_data, but provides sufficient context for typical use cases.

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