sam_check_exclusions

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

Annotations 'readOnlyHint' and 'openWorldHint' are present, and the description significantly expands on them by explaining the meaning of empty results, the need for verification, and the caveat about name matches. No contradictions.

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 dense but not verbose. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points for caveats), but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully describes the return structure (excluded, matchCount, per-record fields) and includes interpretation notes. Parameters are covered in schema and description. The tool's purpose and limitations are well-communicated.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining interaction rules ('post-filtered when combined with name query'), requiring at least one parameter, and clarifying the behavior of 'activeOnly' and 'classification'. This adds meaningful value.

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 action ('screen'), the target ('firm or individual'), the data source ('SAM exclusions index (FAPIIS)'), and the input methods (name/UEI/CAGE). It is specific and distinct from sibling screening tools like 'sam_integrity_lookup' or 'ofac_screen_entity'.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for debarment/exclusion screening) and critical interpretation guidance (empty result ≠ general responsibility, name match not identity-proof). It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is strong.

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