govbid-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only metadata operation and discloses the type of content returned. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool these gaps are minor.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

For a parameterless API metadata endpoint, the description fully covers when to call it, what it returns, and why. The sibling tools are different enough that no additional disambiguation is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is required. The description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GovBid Global API metadata'), and lists concrete fields it returns: version, data source, license, usage guidelines. The tool is clearly distinguished from siblings, which handle opportunity searches and details.

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 instructs the agent to call this first before using other tools, which is strong timing/sequence guidance. This makes the intended role of the tool unambiguous even without naming sibling alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the tool returns a direct SAM.gov URL for a specific notice, which is sufficient for this simple read-only operation. It does not overclaim or introduce ambiguity about side effects.

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 definition is two compact sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, followed by the user-facing purpose, making it easy to scan and immediately actionable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: the input, the output (a direct SAM.gov URL), and the intended use. There are no missing details that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 input schema already thoroughly describes the only parameter, notice_id, including its origin from the 'id' field in search results. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies a specific opportunity but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get the direct SAM.gov URL') and a clearly scoped resource ('a specific contract opportunity by its notice ID'). It is easy to distinguish from the search-focused sibling tool because it explicitly targets a single notice rather than a list.

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 an explicit use case: provide users with a link to verify and view full details on SAM.gov. While it does not name the alternative tools or state when not to use it, the intended context is clear from the wording.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses autonomous-agent eligibility, absence of CAPTCHA, one-time visibility of the api_key, and the need to store it. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences with a front-loaded purpose; each sentence contributes unique information: objective, when to call, human-interaction requirement, and key lifecycle. There is no filler.

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 two-parameter registration call with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the required outcome (API key), the one-time visibility, reuse instruction, and prerequisite. The absent output schema is compensated by the clear description of the returned api_key.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, including semantic notes like 'one active key is allowed per email' and an agent_name max length. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('register') with the resource ('this agent with the GovBid Global API') and the key outcome ('receive an API key'). This clearly separates it from the read-oriented sibling tools like search_opportunities and get_opportunity_detail.

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?

It explicitly scopes use to a one-time bootstrap: 'Call this once if you don't already have an api_key, before calling search_opportunities.' This gives both the precondition and the ordering, and implicitly says not to call when a key already exists.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides useful behavioral context: data source (SAM.gov), daily update frequency, Public Domain license, and the specific fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only search tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by return fields, data currency, licensing, and the authentication prerequisite. Every sentence contributes value.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: what it searches, what it returns, data source and freshness, auth requirement, and registration path. It could be stronger by noting when to use get_opportunity_detail for full details, but the current information is sufficient for correct selection and use.

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%, with each parameter already having descriptive documentation. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('U.S. federal government contract opportunities from SAM.gov'), and enumerates the return fields (title, department, deadline, source URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_opportunity_detail, which focuses on a single opportunity's details.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires an api_key — call register_agent first'), but does not explicitly explain when to choose search_opportunities over get_opportunity_detail or get_api_info. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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