usas_search_teaming_partners

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that results are ranked by agencyObligated with specific fields, that top candidates are optionally screened via sam_check_exclusions with default debarred exclusion, and that a bogus cert triggers invalid_input. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, details on ranking and filtering, and a notable honesty section. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes meaning, and it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (ranked candidates with specific fields) and error behavior (invalid_input). It also notes meta field details for exclusion screening, making it fairly complete for an AI agent's needs.

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% with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the cert limitation and that subagency requires agency, but the schema already covers the basics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is for 'small-business teaming-partner discovery' using specific criteria (certification, NAICS, agency award history), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like usas_search_recipients and usas_search_awards by mentioning the certification-based filtering and integrity screening.

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 usage, including that the cert is award-derived (not SBA certification) and instructs users to verify active certification in SAM/SBS before teaming. It implicitly advises against using this tool when actual SBA certification status is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like sam_lookup_organization.

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