get_award_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only verification operation and explains the nuanced input behavior: a bare PIID is 'resolved via award search first.' It does not mention failure modes, but that is a minor gap for a single-record lookup.

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 efficient sentences each earn their place: the main action in the first, the practical use case in the second, and input details in the third. The important verification purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the key verification fields and both input formats, even with no output schema. Slightly more context about error handling or unavailable records could improve it, but it is largely sufficient for correct use.

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 schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds value by mapping the generated award ID to 'the contract_id Tango returns' and clarifying that a bare PIID must first be resolved, which is useful beyond the raw schema text.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full FPDS record for a single award from USASpending'). The 'verification primitive' phrase and the listed competition-related fields clearly distinguish it from the sibling search/aggregation tools.

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 clear context: 'Use it to confirm that a filtered search actually returned what it claimed before a number goes in a memo.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use intent is unambiguous.

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