usas_search_awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool aggregates data and returns top recipients, but omits mention of the optional setAside parameter, does not explain share-of-wallet concept, and gives no information about rate limits, authentication, or mutation (no destructive hint). This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 with no fluff. The primary purpose and example are front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more detail. It lacks explanation of the output format, the share-of-wallet metric, and the setAside filter entirely. For an aggregation tool, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only agency has a description). The description adds meaning for agency, naics, and fiscalYear by naming them in the context, but does not mention the setAside parameter. It partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 the verb 'aggregate' and resource 'share-of-wallet on USAspending', with specific inputs (agency, NAICS, fiscal year) and outputs (top recipients by total $ and count). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on competitive landscape analysis.

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 provides a concrete use case ('who wins at VA in 541512?') which indicates when to use this tool. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the example gives sufficient context for typical usage.

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