usas_search_recipients

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden. It mentions hierarchy levels and returned fields but omits details on pagination, rate limits, max limit, or error handling. Adequate for basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first covers purpose and output, second provides use case and sibling reference. No redundant content, 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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, description provides core purpose and output fields but lacks details on search behavior, limit constraints, and pagination. Sufficient for typical queries but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 33% (only recipientLevel described). Description explains hierarchy context and repeats level values, but keyword semantic (what fields are searched) and limit behavior (default, max) are not clarified. Adds some value but incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches USAspending recipient list with hierarchy, specifies returned fields (id, duns, uei, level, total_amount), and distinguishes from sibling usas_get_recipient_profile by providing a concrete workflow example.

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 finding recipient_id before usas_get_recipient_profile, giving a clear use case and sequence. Lacks mentions of when not to use or alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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