usas_search_individual_awards

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no destructive actions and data from external source. Description adds that results are line-item level with a generatedInternalId for follow-up, which is useful context beyond annotations. Could mention potential issues like data freshness or pagination, but not required.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then follow-up capability. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the description gives clear purpose and usage hints, it lacks details on parameter semantics, response format (beyond listed fields), pagination, or any limitations. For a 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, more complete guidance on how to craft effective searches would be beneficial.

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 parameter described). The description does not explain how to use parameters like limit, naics, setAside, fiscalYear, or their impact on results. It mentions output fields but not parameter selection, failing to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 returns line-item federal contracts (specific awards) with detailed fields (recipient, $, sub-agency, state, description), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool usas_search_awards by stating to use it after that tool when the user wants 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?

Explicitly guides the agent to use this tool AFTER usas_search_awards for detailed contracts, and indicates follow-up with usas_get_award_detail using the generatedInternalId. Provides clear when-to-use and alternative.

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