Recent federal contract awards (USAspending)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It proactively reveals a non-obvious behavior: awards without a source link are dropped and never returned. It also clarifies ordering, pagination behavior, and the total_matched field. This goes beyond a generic 'returns awards' statement and helps an agent set expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose and ordering first, pagination and defaults second, filters and a key behavioral caveat third. Every sentence contributes distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of the schema field names.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the necessary operational details: default page size, pagination, filtering, full count, and the dropped-award behavior. It does not enumerate award fields beyond award_url, but an agent can still call the tool correctly; the missing return schema is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the default limit (25), the 'newest first' ordering, the use of total_matched for full count, and interprets min_amount as a 'USD floor' and days as a 'last-N-days window'. This helps an agent compose correct queries without opening 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the newest U.S. federal new awards from USAspending.gov', and explicitly states ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all about insider trading and 13F filings, by naming its unique data source and subject.

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?

It gives clear operational context: default limit of 25, pagination via offset, total_matched for full count, min_amount and days as optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools are relevant substitutes, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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