usas_search_individual_awards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each result includes a 'generatedInternalId' for follow-up with usas_get_award_detail, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), permissions, or response behavior beyond the fields listed, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's output, and the second sentence provides usage guidance and follow-up capability, making it highly efficient.

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 with low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, or limitations (e.g., pagination, date ranges). Only high-level purpose and usage order are provided, which is insufficient for full 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only agency has a description). The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (agency, naics, fiscalYear, setAside, limit) beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage. This leaves the agent uninformed about how to use filters effectively.

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 states it returns 'line-item federal contracts on USAspending' with specific award details, clearly defining the verb (returns) and resource (individual awards). It also distinguishes from sibling usas_search_awards by specifying that it is used 'AFTER usas_search_awards' for actual contracts.

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 AFTER usas_search_awards when the user wants show me the actual contracts', providing a clear sequential usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended workflow.

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