get_usaspending_awards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the return contents (award counts, obligations, top awards), which goes beyond a generic 'get data'. However, it omits details such as default limit handling, behavior when fiscal_year is omitted, or any potential limitations, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with only three scalar parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and returns. However, it does not explain what happens if optional parameters like fiscal_year or limit are omitted, nor does it describe the structure of the returned awards data beyond a high-level list. There is no guidance on edge cases or integration with sibling tools.

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% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the agency and fiscal year context. No extra clarification on defaults or parameter interactions is given.

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 retrieves federal awards data for a specific agency and fiscal year, with a verb ('Get') and resource ('federal awards data'). It lists the main outputs, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spending_by_category or search by recipient, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for agency-level awards data but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the sibling tools (e.g., spending_by_category, budgetary_resources). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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