Get Company Profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints. The description enriches this with a crucial scope note: totals count only SAM Award Notices (10-30% of federal obligations), not FPDS data, and a contractor active only in FPDS shows zero by design. This is significant behavioral context beyond annotations, with 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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and scope note. The length is justified by the critical scope caveat; every sentence adds value. The bold and bullet formatting enhances scanability without bloat.

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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, parameter semantics, and a subtle data-scope pitfall. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It defines 'uei' as a 12-character Unique Entity ID and gives concrete sources (search_companies, search_opportunities' award_uei_sam, or any tool returning a uei field). This adds meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 ('Get'), resource ('company's aggregate profile'), and lists the included data (SAM registration fields + award-history totals). Explicitly distinguishes from get_company_awards and get_company_peers, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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?

Clearly indicates this is the SUMMARY view, names the alternatives for detailed awards and peers, and adds a licensing constraint ('Capture & Teaming tool, Pro only'). Provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with explicit sibling references.

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