compliance_check_sam_exclusion

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds: US only, fuzzy name match, 24-hour cache, verified source SAM.gov, and fallback instruction to report_feedback. No contradiction.

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?

Description is thorough but not overly verbose. Each sentence adds value (purpose, usage, param help, alternative, caching, fallback). Could be slightly shorter but 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?

Given one required param and output schema exists, description covers return fields (excluded, type, dates), caching, source, and error handling. Complete for context.

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?

Only one parameter name_or_ein. Description adds format (9-digit EIN with dash example), clarifies required, explains fuzzy match behavior, and suggests verifying with EIN. Schema coverage 100% but description adds significant nuance.

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?

Clearly states it checks US federal exclusions list (debarred from government contracts). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool govcon_search_contract_awards by stating its purpose is to find contracts won, not checks 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before awarding federal contracts or grants.' Provides alternative: 'Use govcon_search_contract_awards instead to find what contracts an entity has won.'

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