search_federal_awards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It covers ordering (largest first) and the data source (USAspending contracts + IDVs). However, it does not disclose response behavior like pagination, error handling, or whether results are limited to top N by amount. The limit parameter partially addresses pagination, but the description lacks explicit behavioral caveats.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core purpose and filtering dimensions.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope and ordering but omits details about the return format (fields included) and any limitations (e.g., maximum count beyond the limit parameter). For a search tool, agents would benefit from knowing what fields are in the output beyond the join context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds value by grouping filters ('by recipient, agency, award type, NAICS, or minimum amount') and explaining the 'joined to resolved recipient entity' context, which clarifies the entity_id parameter. The examples also hint at expected values (e.g., 'boeing', '$1B+').

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 searches U.S. federal awards from USAspending, listing specific filter dimensions (recipient, agency, award type, NAICS, amount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique domain (federal awards) and joined recipient entity.

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?

Provides concrete use-case examples ('NASA contracts to Boeing over $1B' or an operator's federal funding footprint') which help an agent determine when to invoke this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the examples are strong.

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