usas_glossary

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the scope (151 terms from USAspending) and giving example queries, which helps the agent understand what behavior to expect beyond the annotation tags.

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 sentences with no superfluous information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a practical usage directive, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a simple glossary tool, the description covers purpose and usage but omits output details and parameter semantics. Given the lack of output schema, the agent might need to guess at the response format, but the simplicity keeps this gap manageable.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain what 'limit' or 'search' do, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from context. Only minimal guidance is provided through the overall purpose.

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 explicitly states it's a glossary of 151 federal-spending terms and provides specific usage examples like 'what's a TAS?' and 'obligation vs outlay?'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which serve a glossary purpose.

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 tells the agent to use the tool to confirm terminology before answering compliance/budget questions, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list lacks similar tools so confusion is minimal.

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