usas_disaster_spending

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by detailing null handling (number|null for amount/perCapita, real 0 stays 0, absent becomes null), pagination behavior (complete set, no pagination), and error handling (throws on 4xx). No contradictions with annotations.

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 thorough and well-organized, front-loading the core purpose and key constraints. It includes valuable notes on null handling and endpoint behavior, but could be slightly more concise; some details are repeated (e.g., defaults mentioned twice). Overall, efficient for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the output fields (name, code, amount, awardCount, population, perCapita) and explains null handling. It covers all parameters, default behaviors, and error states. The tool's complexity (3 params, 1 required, 2 enums) is fully addressed.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context: explains the role of defCodes (linked to usas_list_disaster_codes), spendingType (obligation vs outlay with a note about real outlays), and geoLayer (default values and levels). This enriches the parameter semantics significantly.

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's purpose: disaster spending by geography with DEFC tags, breaking out by state/county/district. It explicitly distinguishes from standard award search by emphasizing the geography axis and mentions it's a distinct endpoint not covered by other 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?

The description provides clear guidance on required parameters (defCodes) and defaults for spendingType and geoLayer. It also suggests trying both obligation and outlay. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, only implying its distinct purpose.

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