Search Entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description appropriately goes beyond those to add plan restrictions (q vs. Pro filters), error behavior for business_type (400 with valid list), and the fact that it returns uei which is consumed by other tools. This adds useful context, though it doesn't address pagination or rate limits explicitly.

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 longer than average but well-structured: it opens with purpose and alternative, then lists parameters in a clean bullet style. Every line earns its place, though the 'Capture & Teaming tool' note could be considered extraneous. It is organized and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return structure, but it still ties the result to the shared uei identifier, discusses plan limitations, and provides error handling details. This makes it complete for an agent to call correctly, covering parameters, constraints, and integration with other tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining q, naics, state, business_type (with examples like '8W'), active_only, naics_small, and limit (max 100). However, it omits the 'offset' parameter entirely, leaving a gap in pagination understanding. Otherwise it adds strong 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 explicitly states the tool 'Search ALL SAM-registered entities by name' and immediately differentiates it from the sibling search_companies by noting that search_companies has richer award-history fields. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from closely related tools without needing to open schemas.

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?

Directly instructs when to use this tool vs. an alternative: 'For companies that have actually WON an award, use search_companies instead... use this one when you need the full registry'. It also clarifies that only 'q' works on every plan and other filters are Pro, giving clear usage context.

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