compliance_check_sam_exclusion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output (whether they appear on the list) but does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs fuzzy), data freshness, or error handling. This is minimal transparency for a query tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description explains the main function and input. However, it lacks details on output format (though an output schema may cover this) and potential error cases. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 has one required parameter 'name_or_ein' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it expects a name or EIN, but does not specify format (e.g., full name, partial, case sensitivity) or how to handle multiple inputs. This is insufficient to ensure correct parameter usage.

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 verb 'check', the resource 'exclusion from US federal contracting', and the source 'SAM.gov exclusions list'. It distinguishes itself from sibling compliance tools by specifying the specific US federal contracting context.

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 tells when to use it (check exclusion for US federal contracting) and what to provide (name or EIN). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the siblings, such as other compliance checks for different jurisdictions.

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