usas_search_cfda_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions the spending breakdown and CFDA code range, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, authentication, or what the parameters control. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating functionality, usage context, and a key distinction with alternative tool. No waste.

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 that the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return values, or any additional behavioral context needed to use the tool effectively. A more comprehensive description is required.

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 three parameters (agency, fiscalYear, limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving their meaning and usage completely unclear. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 breaks down spending by CFDA grant program code for grant analysis, and distinguishes from contract analysis via a sibling tool. The verb and resource are specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly says to use for grant analysis, notes that CFDA covers grants (award_type 02-05) not contracts, and directs to usas_search_psc_spending for contract analysis. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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