Get Entities Expiring

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return-shape guidance (each entity's uei), the within_days constraint, optional narrowing filters, and the limit cap, which are useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 well organized with a clear opening statement, brief use-case rationale, a compact bullet summary of parameters, and a chaining hint. Every sentence adds useful information and no filler is present.

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 5-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, usage, key parameters, return shape, and the follow-up get_entity call. The main gap is that offset is completely absent from the description despite being part of the schema, but the output schema and annotations reduce the impact of that omission.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of documenting parameters. It covers within_days range/default, state and naics as optional filters, and limit's max value. It omits offset, but the schema shows its default, and the documented parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Find SAM registrations expiring within N days." It also explicitly distinguishes this from a name lookup, so an agent can separate it from sibling tools like search_entities or get_entity.

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 clearly frames the tool as a monitoring/list query and gives concrete use cases: self-monitoring and checking teammates/subs. It also tells the agent to chain results into get_entity for full registration records. It does not explicitly name every alternative search tool, but the guidance is strong enough to route correct usage.

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