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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: scope is limited to 'public registration sections only' and the call requires the caller's own SAM.gov API key via header or argument. It omits rate-limit or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded with the resource and identifiers, then use cases, then constraints. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. The auth requirement and the public-sections scope are both stated, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the header fallback and key-acquisition link. The description only adds the UEI-vs-name precedence hint, which is already implied by the schema's 'used when no UEI given'. Baseline 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?

Specific verb (look up) plus resource (federal contractor registration in SAM.gov) with the key identifiers (UEI, legal business name) stated up front. It enumerates the returned fields and is clearly distinct from siblings like get_award or find_naics.

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 names three concrete use cases: vetting a teaming partner, checking a competitor, confirming award eligibility. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it, but the sibling set is disjoint enough that routing is unambiguous.

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