Search SAM Award Notices

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the dataset is sparse, self-reported, contains only ~52K notices, and ~60% of contractors appear with a single notice. This meaningfully elaborates on the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations and prevents the agent from treating results as a complete award history.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded summary, a short use-case contrast, and a bullet list of parameter meanings. Every sentence adds useful information and no content is wasted or redundant.

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?

The description gives a complete picture of what the tool searches, how it differs from the comprehensive award record, and the semantics of nearly all parameters. The only notable gap is the undocumented offset parameter, which an agent would need for paginated retrieval of large result sets.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining nine of ten parameters: awardee partial match, UEI, 6-digit NAICS, agency substring, USD value bounds, YYYY-MM-DD date bounds, and limit max 1000. However, the offset parameter is not mentioned, leaving pagination behavior undocumented even though the schema only provides its default.

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 and resource: 'Search SAM Award Notices (who won, how much, when).' It also distinguishes itself from search_contracts, making it clear these are SAM notices rather than the comprehensive federal award record, so an agent can tell this tool apart from closely related siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use search_contracts for the comprehensive authoritative award record, and use this tool specifically when the question is about a SAM-noticed award rather than the company's overall federal business. It also warns about the sparse self-reported nature of the data, which helps an agent choose correctly.

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