usas_search_state_spending

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read-only query (spending breakdown), which is safe, but it does not mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, data freshness, or rate limits. The minimal disclosure (only what the tool returns) earns a borderline adequate score.

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 with no fluff: first states the purpose, second provides a clear example. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core use case but leaves gaps: parameter semantics are under-explained, and there is no mention of output structure, sorting, or limits. It is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'naics' in the example and does not explain 'agency', 'fiscalYear', or 'limit'. Thus, beyond parameter names, the description adds little meaning for how to use all parameters 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 clearly states it lists spending broken down by state/territory, with a concrete example for NAICS 541512 that shows the expected output format. This specific verb-resource pair and example distinguish it from sibling tools like usas_search_agency_spending or 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 provides a concrete example of when to use the tool (for geographic breakdown of federal spending by NAICS code) and implies it is appropriate for location-based queries. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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