find_awards

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: returns {count, awards[], lanes}, does not paginate, and is a convenience wrapper. This gives good transparency for a read operation, though it could mention authentication requirements or rate limits explicitly.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by usage details and a note about alternatives. It uses code formatting for clarity. It is concise but could be slightly shortened without losing key information.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented), 2 parameters, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral quirks, and parameter semantics for type. Minor gaps: no mention of required permissions or data volume limits.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'type' parameter with examples ('Pass type= to narrow to one lane; aliases like awards (federal awards only) work'). The 'limit' parameter is not explained, but its default of 25 is shown in schema. Overall, adds meaningful semantic context for one of two parameters.

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 finds 'recent awards in your NAICS feed across all three award lanes'. It specifies the verb (find/resource (awards), and scope (recent, NAICS feed, three lanes). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like find_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?

The description explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For pagination of one lane, switch to find_opportunities with type=awards...the awards endpoint is a convenience wrapper that doesn't paginate.' It also describes narrowing with type=, making usage context very clear.

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