usas_get_agency_awards_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limiting requirements. The name implies read, but explicit disclosure is absent.

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 short sentences with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and returned fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lists the returned fields but does not specify their types, structure, or whether pagination applies. While adequate for a simple summary tool, it could be more complete by detailing the return format and any assumptions about the data.

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 coverage is 50% (toptierCode has a description; fiscalYear does not). The tool description adds the context that toptierCode comes from usas_lookup_agency, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the fiscalYear parameter format or optionality, so compensation is partial.

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 returns high-level award activity for a fiscal year, including specific metrics (transaction_count, obligations, latest_action_date). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like usas_search_agency_spending by emphasizing it's a 'snapshot' of agency volume.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative USAS tools or any context about prerequisites. With 32 sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines are missing, leaving the agent to infer without comparison.

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