Search USAspending.gov Federal Awards

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

Without annotations, the description effectively communicates that the tool searches for awards with known dollar amounts, defaults to contract types and a recent time range, and supports various filters. It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but the parameter descriptions in the schema cover many behavioral aspects. No contradictions are present.

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 concise at three sentences, with the first sentence establishing purpose, the second providing usage guidance, and the third summarizing filters and defaults. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of 19 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, default behavior, and filter capabilities. It does not describe return format, but the core functionality is clearly communicated, making it nearly complete for this type of search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary of filter categories (NAICS, PSC, recipient, etc.) but does not add new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already offer. It reinforces the schema without adding semantic value.

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's purpose: searching USAspending.gov for federal awards with known obligated dollar amounts. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'sam_opportunities_search' by noting that SAM.gov returns solicitations, not awards, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example user queries ('how much was contract X for', 'all federal contracts in Y over $Z') and contrasts with SAM.gov. It also mentions that no API key is required and states default behaviors (contract award types, past 12 months), offering clear context for tool selection.

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