Recent U.S. federal contract awards (USAspending.gov)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: ordering (newest first), the amount/days filtering semantics, that each award carries its source award_url, and a non-obvious data-loss caveat that awards without a source link are silently dropped.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then return shape, then the caveat. No filler, and the most surprising information (dropped awards) is placed last for emphasis.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, ordering, filter semantics, and the key gotcha about dropped awards. Pagination and total_matched are only in the schema, which is acceptable since the schema is complete.

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 (days, limit, offset, min_amount) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates min_amount and days, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it — the baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns newly signed federal awards') and explicitly frames the trigger scenario ('recent federal contracts, government awards, or who won a U.S. federal contract'). The domain is clearly distinct from the SEC/13F/insider siblings, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when the user asks about...' condition, giving clear positive selection guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the sibling set is an unrelated domain, so the routing risk is low.

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