sam_exclusions

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already known. The description adds the semantic context of debarments/suspensions and the business purpose, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether results are limited to active exclusions, default result limits, pagination, or time-to-live of data. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and zero filler. Every word earns its place: 'Search', 'SAM.gov exclusions', 'debarments/suspensions', and the purpose statement. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose adequately. The title and annotation add minimal extra context. However, it omits any hint about the response shape (e.g., a list of exclusion records) and does not mention that at least one search criterion is typically needed, though the schema's optionality is clear. Still, the overall context is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'entity' which maps to the uei/name fields, but does not clarify how parameters combine (e.g., whether both uei and name can be used together). No extra value is provided beyond structured definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names a concrete resource ('SAM.gov exclusions'), and clarifies the purpose ('Check if an entity is excluded from federal contracting'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sam_entities or sam_opportunities, which serve different registration/opportunity use cases.

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 ('Check if an entity is excluded from federal contracting') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and related tools (e.g., ofac_sdn_list for sanctions, or sam_entities for active registrations), which would help an agent avoid mis-selection.

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