usas_search_awards_by_recipient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns line items (including naicsCode and description) rather than aggregates, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a usage example, then output clarification. Every sentence adds unique value.

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?

Considering no output schema, the description adequately describes the output (line items with naicsCode and description) and the main parameters. It could detail what 'line items' includes but is sufficient for an agent to reason about the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to parameters like recipientName, agency, naics, and fiscalYear through the example and context, but does not fully document all parameters (e.g., limit is only implied). The description provides intermediate value.

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 tool's purpose: pulling every contract a specific recipient has won within an agency×NAICS slice. It gives a concrete example ('show me Booz Allen wins at VA last year') and distinguishes from aggregates by noting it returns line items, not aggregates.

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 clear use case with a specific user query example. It implies when to use this tool (for recipient-specific slices) but does not explicitly exclude other cases or compare to sibling tools like 'usas_search_awards' or 'usas_search_individual_awards'.

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