gov.usaspending-awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It only mentions 'Largest-amount first within the date window,' but fails to state that the tool is read-only, does not require authentication, or describe pagination behavior. Important behavioral traits like rate limits or result structure are omitted.

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 single, short sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant information.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential details such as output format, pagination, and result count. It gives only a brief behavioral trait. The tool is relatively complex, and the description does not sufficiently equip an agent to use it correctly without additional information.

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 63%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description adds overall context about sorting and date filtering but does not elaborate on individual parameters. It provides marginal added value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'federal awards (contracts, grants, loans, direct payments)' via USAspending.gov. It clearly distinguishes the tool from other gov.* siblings, as no other sibling deals with awards.

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 searching federal awards and notes the default sorting order, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no competing sibling tools, the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but providing more contextual triggers would improve guidance.

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