sam_integrity_lookup

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description details the integrityFlag values ('excluded' vs 'review_fapiis'), that fapiisRecords is always null with a _meta.fieldsUnavailable field, and that upstream failure surfaces as an error, not a fake clearance.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and parameter requirements, then systematically explaining return values and caveats. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully documents the return object structure including nested fields, edge cases (null records, error handling), and the meaning of integrityFlag. This makes the tool's behavior completely transparent.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by noting that uei is preferred and that name drives an exclusions text search, providing practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as a 'Keyless ONE-CALL integrity screen' that checks for exclusion verdicts and provides a pointer to FAPIIS records. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it composes sam_check_exclusions and never returns a false 'clear'.

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 states required parameters (at least one of uei/cage/name, with uei preferred) and explains when to use it (integrity screening). It also clarifies limitations: never returns 'clear' keylessly, and FAPIIS records are unavailable without a key.

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