Search the verified federal-funding corpus (states, initiatives, sub-initiatives, programs) by keywords. Returns ranked stubs with refs for follow-up tools. tier 'golden' = fidelity-verified; tier 'abstract' = integrity-verified but preliminary, attribute as such.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| query | Yes | keywords, e.g. 'maternal remote monitoring' | |
| cursor | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses search behavior, result format, and the fidelity distinction between tiers. Missing details include explanation of the 'cursor' parameter and potential rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by result and tier details. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple entity types, result tiers, cursor for pagination) and no output schema, the description only partially covers what the agent needs. It lacks explanation of the 'kind' filter, cursor usage, and the structure of a 'stub' or 'refs'. Basic use is enabled, but deeper understanding requires inference.
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 schema covers 3 parameters but only 'query' has a description; schema coverage is 33%. The description adds value for the query parameter ('keywords') and overall context, but does not explain 'kind' (despite enum) or 'cursor'. Low schema coverage demands more compensation than provided.
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 clearly states the tool searches the verified federal-funding corpus by keywords, specifying the entity types (states, initiatives, sub-initiatives, programs). The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools which are retrieval-focused (e.g., get_document).
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 explains the result format (ranked stubs with refs) and defines the two tiers (golden vs abstract) with usage guidance ('attribute as such'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: document metadata, state profiles, sub-initiative ledgers, deadlines, program search, and cryptographic verification. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, verify_) in snake_case, with no deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a focused data-access server, covering key query operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers core data retrieval needs: documents, profiles, ledgers, deadlines, search, and verification. The references to follow-up tools indicate thoughtful integration.
