usas_lookup_agency

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the input-output transformation (abbreviation to canonical name+code). While it could mention error handling, it adequately describes behavior for a simple lookup tool.

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, each earning its place. First explains what it does, second gives critical usage guidance. No redundancy.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, example inputs, and usage context relative to sibling tools. Complete and self-contained.

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 has 100% coverage with one parameter described generically. Description adds meaning by giving specific examples ('VA', 'DHS') and explaining the purpose of resolution, enhancing semantic understanding beyond schema.

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 the tool resolves user-friendly abbreviations to canonical agency names and codes using specific verbs and examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying it's a prerequisite for other USAspending 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?

Explicit instruction: 'ALWAYS call this FIRST if the user uses an abbreviation — other USAspending tools require the canonical name.' Clearly tells when to use and mentions alternatives.

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