usas_search_subagency_spending

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates that the tool reads and breaks down spending, but omits details on authentication, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or what the response includes (e.g., amounts, percentages). The examples hint at output format but are 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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by clarifying examples. No wasted words, efficient communication.

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 tool has two simple parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description should cover common usage scenarios, return format, and parameter constraints. It does not specify if fiscalYear is required or defaults to current year, nor describe error conditions. The description is minimal and incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 provides examples for 'agency' (VA, DoD) but does not specify input format (name, code?). 'fiscalYear' is not mentioned at all. The description adds some value through examples but is insufficient for both parameters.

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 a parent agency's spending by sub-agency/office, with concrete examples (VA OI&T vs VHA, DoD vs Army vs DISA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usas_search_agency_spending, which likely provides total spending at the agency level.

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 for drilling into sub-agency breakdowns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like usas_search_federal_account_spending or usas_search_agency_spending. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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