usas_list_toptier_agencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'List all' but does not clarify if the list is paginated or what the default limit is. The optional 'limit' parameter suggests pagination, but the description does not address this or mention rate limits, authorization, or idempotency. For a read-like operation, the description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, no redundant words, and front-loads the purpose. Every part adds value: listing fields, example use, and sibling tool reference. It is efficiently structured for quick AI comprehension.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists returned fields and provides usage context. However, it does not explain the limit parameter or indicate the response format (e.g., JSON array). For a simple list tool, it is mostly complete but has a minor gap in parameter documentation.

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 input schema has one parameter ('limit', number) with 0% description coverage. The tool's description does not mention what this parameter does, its default value, or how it affects results. Since the schema provides no explanation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without necessary parameter usage information.

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 that the tool lists all toptier federal agencies and specifies the fields returned. It also provides example use cases and explicitly links to related sibling tools (usas_get_agency_*), differentiating it from other agency-related 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for listing all cabinet departments with spending or finding toptier_code for other USAS tools. It provides concrete example queries ('show me every cabinet department + their FY26 spending') and refers to sibling tools, making usage clear.

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