usas_get_agency_budget_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the output (spending by program area) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, or any side effects. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 remarkably concise: a single sentence plus a parenthetical example. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a reasonable conceptual overview but lacks details on pagination (limit parameter), error handling, or data formatting. It is adequate for a straightforward lookup tool but not fully 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 only 33% (toptierCode documented). The description adds meaning by explaining the toptierCode example ('036' for VA) and implying that fiscalYear is used via 'agency × fiscal year'. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide format details for 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 the tool's purpose: 'Budget function breakdown for an agency × fiscal year.' It provides a concrete example with VA and specific budget categories, making it easy to understand what the tool returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on awards, profiles, or spending overviews.

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 by describing the output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like usas_search_agency_spending or usas_get_agency_profile. No guidance is given on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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