usas_list_toptier_agencies

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by specifying the output fields (toptier_code, abbreviation, slug, obligations) and the scope (list all toptier agencies). No contradiction; it complements annotations well.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, output, and usage, but lacks details on default behavior of the optional limit parameter (e.g., no pagination info, default count). Also does not mention data freshness or error handling. Given the simple tool, it's adequate but incomplete.

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 only parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage; the description does not mention it at all. The description fails to explain what limit does (e.g., maximum number of agencies), which is critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'toptier federal agencies', and the specific data returned (toptier_code, abbreviation, slug, current-FY obligations). Provides concrete use case examples, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like usas_get_agency_profile or usas_lookup_agency.

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?

Explicitly gives two use cases: listing all cabinet departments with spending and finding a toptier_code for other agency tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the examples imply appropriate context. Could mention alternatives but still provides clear guidance.

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