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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses substantial operational context: free tier capped at trailing 92 days, history gated behind Pro, provisional recent months, Defense reporting lag of ~90 days, signed-obligation (not payment) semantics, and exact-decimal-string requirement. This is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core search purpose and then layered constraints. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic sentence fragments are slightly harder to parse than structured prose would be.

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 complex 16-parameter query tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), it covers the critical limits, tier gating, data-source caveats, and filter surface. The main omissions are the period and sort-parameter semantics and pagination behavior.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and covers most parameters: ticker(s), agency, sub_agency, fiscal_year, dates (from/to), recipient, naics, award_type, min_amount, and view. It leaves page, limit, period, sort_actions, and sort_companies unexplained, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 (search) and resource (U.S. federal prime-contract actions sourced from USAspending, FY2015+), and clearly describes two modes: listing actions and ranking companies via view=companies. It does not name the sibling get_gov_contracts to differentiate, but the scope is precise enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: use view=companies to rank by obligations, tickers required to exceed the 366-day window, and free vs Pro tier boundaries (92 days vs history). It lacks an explicit statement of when this tool is preferred over the sibling get_gov_contracts, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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