usas_get_agency_awards_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It notes the tool returns a 'snapshot' but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, data freshness, or potential limits. Minimal context beyond the literal output.

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?

Single sentence plus a fragment, no wasted words. Essential information (purpose, output fields, reference to lookup) is front-loaded and compact.

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 return fields despite no output schema. It explains the tool's scope (agency+fiscal year) and result set structure. Lacks details on edge cases like missing data, but adequate for a simple summary tool.

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 50% (toptierCode documented, fiscalYear not). The description adds value by linking toptierCode to 'usas_lookup_agency' and implying fiscalYear usage, but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of fiscalYear.

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 it provides 'high-level award activity' with specific metrics (transaction_count, obligations, latest_action_date) for a fiscal year. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like usas_search_awards by being a summary snapshot.

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 usage for obtaining aggregate award data by agency and fiscal year, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., usas_search_agency_spending). No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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