Check Exclusions for a Vendor

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns records with reason, agency, and dates, and mentions partial match for name. It aligns with the annotations and goes beyond them by explaining the data returned. 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?

The description is concise yet thorough. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives usage scenario, then bullets the parameters, and finally mentions what is returned. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Structure is clear and scannable.

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 the output schema exists (as per context) and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient contextual info: what it checks, when to use it, what inputs to provide, and what output to expect. It omits less critical details like pagination or error handling, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 must fully explain parameters. It does: name (partial match), uei (same identifier as other tools), cage_code (CAGE code). It also implies limit is optional via the 'at least one of' instruction, though limit itself is not explicitly described. This provides significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks the SAM.gov exclusions list (debarred/suspended entities). It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SAM.gov exclusions list'), and the mention of identifiers shared with search_companies/search_entities distinguishes it from sibling tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('before subcontracting or teaming, and again periodically post-award'). It also explains the required identifier input (at least one of name/uei/cage_code). However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should NOT be used or name alternative tools for related searches (e.g., general company search), so it lacks a clear exclusionary contrast.

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