usas_spending_over_time

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

The description discloses that the tool returns 'yearly/quarterly/monthly $ rollups', indicating a read-only aggregation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or whether it mutates data. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but not fully 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and listing options, then providing an example. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic functionality but omits details on output format, ordering, time range limits, and whether multiple groups can be combined. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for more nuanced queries.

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 explains the 'group' parameter's values and mentions that agency, NAICS, and set-aside are filters. It does not specify formats for agency and NAICS or explain the setAside enum values. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but is incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 is a time-series aggregation of federal spending, explicitly mentioning grouping by fiscal year/quarter/month and filtering by agency/NAICS/set-aside. It provides a concrete example query and states the output type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like usas_search_agency_spending which focus on detailed searches.

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 includes a usage example ('how has VA 541512 spending trended over the past 5 years'), implying it should be used for trend analysis over time. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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