usas_search_agency_spending

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'spending broken down' implying read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, idempotent, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus an example. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the main purpose ('Spending broken down by awarding agency').

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?

Despite low complexity, the description is too sparse. It lacks explanation of return format, parameter details, and any constraints or defaults. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more guidance is needed.

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 4 parameters (naics, fiscalYear, setAside, limit) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions NAICS in an example, failing to explain the meaning, defaults, or effects of any parameter.

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 'Spending broken down by awarding agency' and gives an example query for top buyers by NAICS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search by subagency or state. The verb 'search' in the name aligns with the description.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for agency-level spending breakdown with a specific example, but no explicit when-not or alternative tools. Siblings like usas_search_subagency_spending exist but are not mentioned.

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