Resolve DUNS to UEI

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that coverage is limited to FFATA subaward filings since FY2025 (~24K firms), that 404 is not a SAM-level negative proof, and that the official SAM translator is admin-gated. This is exactly the behavioral nuance that prevents an agent from drawing the wrong conclusion.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-sentence capability statement, a free-tier note, a parameter line, and a clearly separated coverage caveat. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information without padding.

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 identifier resolver with no nested schema, the description covers input formats, output contents, coverage limitations, and 404 semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated in the description.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It defines accepted formats for DUNS, DUNS+4, and UEI, and states that either side is accepted. This is solid but not exhaustive—case sensitivity and formatting edge cases are not addressed.

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 plus resource: it resolves between legacy DUNS and current UEI, explicitly covering both directions and the returned data. This clearly differentiates it from the broader search/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 context for when to call it—any time a DUNS/UEI translation is needed—and adds practical guidance about interpreting 404s in the FFATA-derived crosswalk. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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