usas_search_cfda_spending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying the grant scope (award types 02-05) and clarifying that this tool covers CFDA programs, not contracts. No contradictions with 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?

The description is four clear sentences that immediately convey purpose, use case, and limitations. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

The description gives sufficient context for a simple search tool, covering purpose and domain differentiation. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., list of spending amounts by CFDA code) or how the parameters affect results. For a 3-parameter tool without output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only agency has a description), the tool description should compensate but does not. The description mentions 'CFDA grant program code' but does not explain how parameters like limit, agency, or fiscalYear relate to that. No parameter-level guidance is provided beyond the schema.

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 provides spending data broken down by CFDA grant program code, with the specific use case 'top federal grant programs by $'. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that CFDA covers grants (award types 02-05) not contracts, and explicitly recommends usas_search_psc_spending for contract 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for grant analysis') and when not to ('not contracts'), providing a direct alternative: 'Use usas_search_psc_spending for contract market analysis.' This gives clear context for choosing among siblings.

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