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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses data source (daily USAspending snapshot), coverage (current FY plus 3-year trend), freshness (stated in response), and limitations (partial-year, intel-agency never published). No contradictions or omissions.

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 a compact paragraph of about 5 sentences, beginning with a clear purpose statement. Every sentence adds essential detail: outputs, example usage, data source, freshness, and caveats. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect. It covers purpose, typical usage, data source, limitations, and output components. No additional context is needed for correct 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?

The single parameter 'agency' is fully described in the schema with examples. The description adds contextual value: 'Good queries name one agency' and 'before a first call,' which aids interpretation. While the schema coverage is 100%, the description provides minimal but useful extra guidance.

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's purpose: answering 'what does this agency actually buy, and from whom?' and lists specific outputs (total obligations, 3-year trend, top vendors/NAICS). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_expiring_contracts' which focus on other aspects, and positions it as a pre-call profiling tool.

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 provides clear usage guidance: use before a first call, good queries name one agency (e.g., 'HHS'), and includes caveats (federal only, partial-year data, intel-agency exclusions). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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