Get Company Contact

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that SAM registration agents are filtered out so the result is the actual decision-maker contact, and that the tool has separate IP + key burst limits and is rate-limited more tightly than other tools. This is genuine operational context that annotations do not carry, and it does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation.

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?

Packs purpose, filtering behavior, sibling distinction, access restriction, parameter format, and a rate-limit caution into roughly 70 words, with the core purpose front-loaded and a clean bullet for the parameter. Every sentence carries distinct information and earns its place.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter lookup: an output schema exists (so return format needs no prose), annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers what is filtered, when to use it versus the sibling, who can use it (Pro only), and the operational rate-limit caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the sole parameter and compensates by defining uei as a 12-character Unique Entity ID. It provides the essential meaning and format, though it stops short of details like accepted formatting variants, leading-zero handling, or invalid-input behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a vendor's REAL decision-maker contact.' It explicitly excludes SAM registration agents and positions the tool on the vendor/teammate side, contrasted with the buyer-side search_contacts, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly (search_contacts) and gives the selection rule: search_contacts finds a CONTRACTING OFFICER at an agency (buyer side), while this tool serves the vendor/teammate side. It also flags the Pro-only restriction and advises against tight loops across many UEIs due to tighter rate limits.

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