usas_search_subawards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'enumerate subcontracts' and 'surfaces network' without detailing pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no parameters are provided. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and examples. No unnecessary words; every part 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?

With no output schema and 5 optional parameters, the description omits return format, result interpretation, and behavior with various parameter combinations. The examples hint at use but do not provide complete context for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 should explain parameters. It does so indirectly via examples (primeRecipientName, agency), but not for naics, fiscalYear, or limit. This adds some meaning but not complete compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 enumerates subcontracts on prime awards, with concrete examples like 'who teams with Leidos at DISA' and 'show small-business subs on Accenture's DHS contracts'. It differentiates from sibling tools like usas_search_awards by focusing on the prime/sub network for teaming-map artifacts.

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 specific use cases and hints at when to use (e.g., teaming-map artifacts) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the examples are strong enough for an agent to infer the scope.

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