usas_get_award_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It lists the return fields, making the behavior transparent for a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or authorization.

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?

Two-sentence description with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and return details are concisely listed.

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?

Tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so description's listing of return fields is nearly complete. Could mention if any edge cases exist, but sufficient for low complexity.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with a description and example. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the ID comes from usas_search_individual_awards, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches full detail for a single award using generatedInternalId, and explicitly lists the return fields (period_of_performance, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like usas_search_individual_awards by noting it provides fields the search omits.

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 after usas_search_individual_awards by referencing it as the source of generatedInternalId. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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