usas_search_psc_spending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the basic function (breaking down spending by PSC) and gives an example, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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, which is efficient. However, the second sentence packs an example and a contrast, making it slightly dense but still clear.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to construct queries, what the output looks like, or how parameters like 'naics' interact with the PSC breakdown. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use reliably.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (agency, naics, fiscalYear, limit). It only mentions that spending is broken down by PSC and gives an example, leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.

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 breaks down spending by Product Service Code (PSC), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling NAICS-based tools by explicitly contrasting with NAICS and giving an example PSC (R425).

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 gives a concrete use case ('what PSC categories see the most $ at DoD') and explains that it surfaces market structure beyond NAICS. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools.

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