AgentGov

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the purpose and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying sentence about utility. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema and moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), the description is largely adequate. It explains the data type (contract awards) and the kind of information returned (prices, winners). However, it could be more complete by noting the default limit (10) or max results (25) and describing the search scope (e.g., no date range mentioned).

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 100% because all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what is already provided in the input schema. Thus, it meets the baseline.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'historical US federal contract award data', and the specific purpose 'for price intelligence'. It also mentions outcomes ('what similar contracts paid and who won them'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contracts and search_grants by focusing on award data and pricing.

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 implies usage for price intelligence on contract awards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_contracts for general contracts or search_grants for grants). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'search,' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or safety implications. Minimal information beyond the obvious.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, immediate clarity. Purpose is front-loaded with no wasted words.

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 search tool with clear schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it searches, where from, and typical use. It could mention result format or pagination, but is adequate for this type of tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 it searches 'active US federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov', specifying the verb, resource, and source. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'contracts' vs. awards and grants.

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 says it is 'useful for finding RFPs, solicitations, and government procurement opportunities', which implies appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context of 'contracts' provides implicit differentiation.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states 'Search...' implying read-only, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or result behavior such as pagination or sorting.

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?

Description is two sentences, no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope.

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 has 6 optional parameters with no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain result format, how filters interact, or provide any usage examples for a moderately complex search tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only reiterates the general scope.

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?

Description specifies verb 'search', resource 'grants', scope 'active US federal', and source 'Grants.gov'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools 'search_awards' and 'search_contracts' which handle different funding types.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description implies it covers all federal agencies but does not mention exclusions or provide context for when to choose this over siblings like 'search_contracts'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authorization requirements, or the nature of mutations. It only describes the search functionality, which is already implied by the name and schema.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. It covers the main functionality and parameter-driven search modes, though it omits details on pagination or error handling.

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 100% for all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It lists use cases but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or formatting details.

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 federal award spending data and lists three specific use cases (keyword search, company totals, agency breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are more narrowly scoped (search_awards, search_contracts, search_grants).

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 implies usage through listed examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or optimal scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from parameter options.

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