usas_search_awards

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it states that per-recipient award counts are null (not 0) and only obligated $ is returned. This adds context to the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, without contradiction.

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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, limitation, alternatives, and use case. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (top recipients by obligated $) and what is not (counts). It also provides a concrete use case, making the tool's scope and limitations clear.

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 low (25%: only agency described). The description adds meaning by tying parameters to the use case (agency × NAICS × fiscal year) and implies their role in filtering. However, it does not detail the setAside parameter format or values, which would have enhanced clarity further.

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 it aggregates share-of-wallet on USAspending, specifying inputs (agency, NAICS, fiscal year) and output (top recipients by total obligated $). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that per-recipient award counts are not returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (e.g., 'who wins at VA in 541512?') and when not to (when counts are needed), directing to alternatives like usas_search_awards_by_recipient or usas_get_recipient_profile. This provides clear guidance.

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