sam_entities

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

The description simply says 'Search' and lists parameters, which is largely redundant with the schema descriptions. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already covered. It adds no behavioral details such as result limits, pagination, what happens when no filters are provided, or any special constraints, thus providing minimal value beyond the structured metadata.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence identifies the action and resource, the second lists the available lookup keys. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple search tool with complete schema descriptions and a read-only hint, the description is adequate. However, it lacks guidance on parameter combinations, default behavior when no filters are supplied, and return format (since no output schema exists). Given the presence of sibling SAM tools, a pointer to alternatives would improve completeness, but the current description is minimally sufficient.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats four parameter names but adds no new semantic meaning or interaction rules (e.g., whether filters are combinable or mutually exclusive). It neither improves nor degrades the schema information.

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 searches registered entities (businesses/orgs) on SAM.gov, with specific lookup fields (UEI, CAGE code, name, state). It is specific and resource-focused, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sam_opportunities or sam_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 when to use the tool (when searching for entity registrations on SAM.gov) but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. It lists valid lookup dimensions but does not explain when to prefer this over sam_opportunities or sam_exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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