usas_search_subagency_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 the behavioral trait of surfacing sub-agency budget holders, but it does not go beyond what annotations suggest. No mention of performance, indexing, or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys the tool's function and gives concrete examples.

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?

The description is complete for a query tool that returns sub-agency spending breakdowns. However, it does not mention whether results are aggregated or list-based, nor does it address pagination or limits. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on what the response contains would be helpful.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. The schema has detailed description for 'agency' but none for 'fiscalYear'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage on fiscalYear.

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's purpose: breaking down a parent agency's spending by sub-agency/office. It uses specific verbs and provides examples (VA OI&T vs VHA) that distinguish it from sibling tools like usas_search_agency_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 implies usage when a sub-agency breakdown is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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