compliance_check_sam_exclusion

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

No annotations, but description fully discloses read-only, no side effects, idempotent, 24-hour cache, fuzzy name matching, and verified source. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose; each sentence adds value. Slightly long but well-structured; minor redundancy (e.g., read-only, no side effects, idempotent could be condensed).

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?

With one parameter and output schema implied, description covers return fields, cache, source, fallback feedback mechanism, and sibling differentiation, exceeding completeness 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; description provides format, required status, examples, and guidance on fuzzy vs exact matching, fully compensating.

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 the tool checks US federal exclusions list with specific verb and resource; distinguishes from sibling govcon_search_contract_awards via explicit when-to-use/alternative.

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 when to use (before awarding federal contracts/grants) and when not (use govcon_search_contract_awards instead). Also notes US-only applicability.

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