usas_search_awards_by_recipient

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states the output contains 'line items + naicsCode + description' and clarifies it is not aggregated. However, it misses details on pagination, rate limits, auth, error handling, or what happens with empty results. The explanation of scope ('every contract... within a slice') adds value but is insufficient.

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, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose; the second adds a usage pattern and output hint. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps. It explains the what and when but not the full parameter details, output structure, or edge-case behaviors. It is functional but not fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only broadly implies the use of recipientName, agency, and fiscalYear via the example, but does not explain each parameter's role, format, or optionality. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate more.

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 a specific verb ('Pull every contract') and resource ('a specific recipient within an agency × NAICS slice'). It provides an example query ('show me Booz Allen wins at VA last year') and distinguishes from aggregates, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'Use when the user asks...' with a concrete scenario, and contrasts with aggregates. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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