Search Partners

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are firms with actual past performance, each result returns a UEI, and the 'agencies' field limitation is explicitly flagged. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a tight parameter bullet list and a concise return/chaining caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the amount of otherwise-undocumented parameter semantics.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description covers all non-obvious inputs, the return value, chaining targets, access level, and a subtle field limitation. The output schema handles return shape, so nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains naics as exact 6-digit, agency as crosswalk-resolved, state as 2-letter place-of-performance, set_aside as an enumerated list, keywords as matching award description, and limit as max 50. Only offset is left to the schema, and its pagination meaning is self-evident.

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 states a specific outcome — 'Find teaming/partner firms with REAL past performance' — and names the filtering dimensions (NAICS, agency, state, set-aside). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_companies and get_company_peers, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It identifies the exact 'who could I team with' question, notes Pro-only access, and names two alternative tools with contrasting intents. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and enough context to avoid selecting a sibling tool.

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