Get Company Decision-Maker Contact

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: SAM registration agents are filtered out, and the tool is rate-limited more tightly than other tools with separate IP and key burst limits. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs to avoid misuse and interpret results correctly.

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 longer than a two-liner but every section adds distinct value: purpose, sibling distinction, parameter format, and rate-limit warning. It is well structured with a bullet and line breaks, though the prose around the filtering behavior could be tightened.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter format, licensing/access, and operational constraints. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only uei with a generic string type, so the description must compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. The bullet 'uei: 12-character Unique Entity ID' supplies the missing format/length meaning and is sufficient for selecting the correct value for the single parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: resolving a vendor's actual decision-maker contact, and explicitly distinguishes the buyer side from search_contacts and the vendor/teammate side. It also names the SAM paperwork-filer filtering behavior, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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?

It explicitly names search_contacts as the alternative for contracting-officer/agency-side contacts, making the selection condition clear. It also adds a practical rate-limit warning advising against tight loops across many UEIs, which functions as a when-to-avoid guideline, plus the Pro-only restriction.

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