Get Expiring SAM Registrations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is Pro-only, returns UEI identifiers, and sets practical expectations via the limit cap. This is meaningful behavioral information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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-structured and appropriately sized. It leads with purpose, gives the practical use case, then follows with a concise bullet list of parameter semantics. No redundant 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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics for most arguments, and the chaining workflow. Given the annotations and output schema, the main missing piece is the offset parameter's meaning, but the rest is sufficiently complete for correct selection and 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 compensate. It provides valuable semantics for within_days (range and default), state/naics (optional filters), and limit (maximum). However, it omits the offset parameter entirely, which is a gap for pagination understanding.

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 frames this as a 'monitoring/list question' and distinguishes it from a name lookup, so an agent can understand what this tool is for and how it differs from entity lookup siblings.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: monitoring expirations, self-monitoring, and checking teammates/subs. It contrasts the tool with 'a name lookup' and recommends chaining to get_entity for full records, though it doesn't name the exact alternative tool for name lookup.

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