usas_search_subawards

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns rows with specific fields (subRecipient, amount, actionDate, prime award id, NAICS), and it notes that there is no prime-name filter due to the view's structure. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded: it starts with the main purpose, then provides a usage example, a critical note about limitations, and finally lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good context: purpose, usage, return fields, and limitations. It does not explain pagination or the limit parameter behavior, but for a search tool this is acceptable. No output schema means return fields are covered in the description.

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 explains the subRecipientName parameter in detail, leaving limit, naics, agency, and fiscalYear unmentioned. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add enough value for all 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 enumerates federal subawards with optional filtering by subrecipient name, and provides a concrete example ('where does Leidos appear as a SUBcontractor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like usas_search_awards and usas_get_award_detail.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to find subs under a prime by subrecipient name) and when not to (to find subs under a specific prime, use other tools). It provides a clear workflow: 'resolve that prime's awards first (usas_search_awards -> usas_get_award_detail) and read their sub network.'

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