Federal Contracts & Grants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It implies a read-only search and hints the data is "historical" (i.e., past awards, not current pricing), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, data coverage, or what fields come back.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose (search federal award data) is front-loaded before the price-intelligence rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is searched and roughly what is returned (prices paid, winners). It omits result shape, data recency/coverage, and any routing guidance relative to its three siblings.

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 all four parameters (limit, naics, agency, keyword) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering syntax, NAICS guidance, or keyword-matching semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (historical US federal contract award data), plus the intent (price intelligence). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_contracts, which by name appears to cover very similar ground, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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?

"For price intelligence" and "find out what similar contracts paid" imply the scenario in which this tool is appropriate, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the sibling alternatives (search_contracts, search_grants, search_spending) that an agent must choose between.

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, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully identifies the source (SAM.gov) and scope (active opportunities), but does not elaborate on read-only behavior, authentication needs, result limits, or what is returned beyond the basic search purpose.

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, front-loaded with the core action and source, then a short usage note. No filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the domain and source but omits return format, pagination behavior, and authentication context. It is minimally sufficient for invocation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what is already documented in the input schema.

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 (active US federal contract opportunities) plus the data source (SAM.gov). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_awards and search_grants by resource type, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 implied usage context by saying it is useful for finding RFPs, solicitations, and government procurement opportunities. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_awards, search_grants, or search_spending, nor does it mention exclusions.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only 'active' opportunities are returned and that the source is Grants.gov, implying a read-only search. However, it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, rate limits, or how the returned data is structured.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits filter-combination semantics (e.g. whether keyword and category are ANDed) and result behavior, leaving the schema to carry nearly everything.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with units and enum-like values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (active US federal grant opportunities) with a clear source (Grants.gov) and scope (all federal agencies and funding types). The resource is distinguishable from siblings like search_awards, search_contracts, and search_spending, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It never tells the agent when to pick search_grants over search_awards or search_spending, even though those siblings clearly overlap in the funding domain.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results come from the live USAspending.gov federal source, hinting at an external API call, but it says nothing about rate limits, latency, auth, result freshness, or pagination behavior and that the limit caps at 25 (only visible in the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and source, with zero filler. The second sentence's use cases slightly restate what the type parameter enum already conveys, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 6-parameter tool with no required params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits meaningful detail: how the type value governs which other parameters matter, what each mode returns, and how limit interacts with results. It is adequate but leaves real gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The prose loosely ties recipient and agency concepts to use cases, but it does not clarify which parameters apply to which type value (e.g., that recipient is only meaningful when type=recipient), so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Search federal award spending data") plus the data source (USAspending.gov) and three concrete modes (keyword search, company totals, agency breakdown). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the siblings search_awards, search_contracts, and search_grants, which appear to overlap heavily with its "awards" mode.

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 by mapping scenarios to the three type modes, which is helpful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus search_awards/search_contracts/search_grants, and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess against three similarly named siblings.

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