search_usaspending_awards_by_recipient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and mentions filters, but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or read-only behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and scope, and the second succinctly adds a use case.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should cover return values, but it does not. It adequately explains the tool's purpose and filters but omits behavioral details. For a straightforward search tool, it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a light grouping of filters ('time period and amount ranges') that maps to fiscal_year and min/max_amount, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 'Search for federal awards by recipient name' with a specific verb, resource, and key parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on recipient-name search and gives a concrete use case ('investigating specific companies or organizations').

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 ('Great for investigating specific companies or organizations') that implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_usaspending_awards or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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