Get Opportunity

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the returned record includes, such as agency, contacts, attachments, and award data where applicable.

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 concise sentences lead with the core action and lookup key, then summarize the returned payload. There is no filler or unnecessary 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?

Given the simple one-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The summary of returned fields is a helpful supplement beyond the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single parameter. It clarifies that notice_id is the identifier used to fetch a specific opportunity, but it does not provide format, examples, or guidance on where to find the ID. The basic semantic is adequate, though not deeply detailed.

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 ('Fetch'), names the resource ('single contract opportunity'), and identifies the lookup key ('notice_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_opportunities, which return multiple results.

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 clearly states this is the tool to use when fetching one contract opportunity by its notice_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the lookup-by-ID context is unambiguous.

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