search_vendorsSearch current public SAM entities by name, UEI, CAGE, status, location, or primary NAICS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| uei | No | ||
| cage | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| country | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'current' and 'public' context but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or matching semantics. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or 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 search tool with rich annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the cursor-based pagination, the exact meaning of 'location' (state vs. country), or what the response structure contains, which are relevant given the 9 parameters and absent 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?
The description lists most searchable fields (name, UEI, CAGE, status, location, primary NAICS), adding meaning beyond bare property names. However, it omits the limit and cursor parameters and does not explain how fields interact (e.g., AND/OR), leaving gaps given the 0% schema description coverage.
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 identifies the resource as 'current public SAM entities' and lists specific search fields (name, UEI, CAGE, status, location, primary NAICS). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_awards and search_exclusions.
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 by focusing on SAM entities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_exclusions or search_awards. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
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.