search_exclusionsCheck the current public exclusion snapshot by exact UEI or CAGE, or cautious name search. This is not a compliance certification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| uei | No | ||
| cage | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sam_number | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context with 'cautious name search' and the warning that this is not a compliance certification, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the reliability of the snapshot.
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, no redundant wording, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the description adds 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?
The core workflow is clear, but the description omits details about parameter interactions (e.g., combining UEI and CAGE), return value structure, and snapshot update frequency. Since there is no output schema, these gaps are not covered elsewhere, leaving the description adequate but not fully complete.
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 compensates partially by explaining UEI, CAGE, and name search semantics. However, it does not address q, limit, or sam_number, leaving these parameters underspecified. The added insight on exact vs. cautious searching is useful but incomplete.
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 checks the current public exclusion snapshot using exact UEI/CAGE or cautious name search, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_awards or search_vendors. The added caveat that it is not a compliance certification further clarifies the intent.
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 implies usage for verifying exclusion status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The 'not a compliance certification' warning gives partial context, but there is no direct mention of when to avoid this tool or which sibling to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.