gov_edge

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is read-only implied but not stated, and there is no mention of what happens on empty results or error conditions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and output. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly).

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 three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers core functionality and outputs but lacks detail on parameters and behavioral edge cases. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%. The description hints at the min_amount parameter via 'Federal contract awards $10M+' but does not explain days_back or agency. The default values are mentioned in the schema but not in the description, leaving the agent without full understanding of parameter effects.

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 retrieves federal contract awards over $10M from USASpending.gov and cross-references vendors with stock tickers. It also specifies outputs: agency breakdown, award amounts, AI narrative. This distinguishes it from siblings like contract_check and gov_edge_opportunities.

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. It does not advise against certain uses or provide context for selection among siblings, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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