usas_glossary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation and mentions the scope (151 terms). However, does not disclose behavior like pagination, default behavior with no input, or any potential side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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 sentences with no redundancy. First sentence defines the resource, second provides usage scenario. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, two optional params), the description is largely complete. It states the content type, size, and use case. Could mention return format but not essential for basic usage.

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?

Input schema has two parameters (search, limit) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain their purpose or format; 'limit' is ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value beyond parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it is a glossary of 151 federal-spending terms, with specific examples ('what's a TAS?', 'what's an obligation vs outlay?'). It uses a specific verb 'confirm terminology' and is distinct from sibling data-retrieval tools.

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?

Provides explicit context for use: 'before answering compliance/budget questions'. Implicitly excludes data retrieval tasks, which are handled by sibling tools. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the guidance is clear.

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