usas_search_state_spending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about the granularity (state/territory breakdown) and example output format, without contradicting annotations. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but the baseline is already covered.

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 a single sentence with a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words, earning its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and open world, the description provides a clear use case and output format hint. It is sufficient for a search tool but could address more parameter scenarios.

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 25% (only the 'agency' parameter has a description). The description does not explain 'limit', 'fiscalYear', or 'naics' beyond the example implicit usage. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 provides spending broken down by state/territory. It gives a specific example query and answer format, and distinguishes from sibling tools like usas_search_agency_spending (agency-level) and usas_search_subagency_spending.

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 includes an example query ('where is the most federal $ flowing for NAICS 541512') and what answer to expect, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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