usa_spending_by_agency

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read operation aligns. The description adds the behavior of breaking down by agency and highlighting top agencies, but does not disclose other traits like sorting, pagination, or default limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence reinforces the purpose without redundancy. No unnecessary information.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a fully descriptive schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the core functionality and scope, though it could optionally mention supported filters or output ordering, but these are covered by the schema and not critical for this simple aggregation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond indicating the data is by agency, meaning it does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gets total federal spending broken down by awarding agency, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also adds the context that it shows which agencies are spending the most, distinguishing it from sibling tools like usa_spending_by_state or usa_spending_by_recipient.

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 agency-level spending analysis but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like usa_spending_by_state or usa_spending_by_award. It offers no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references, but the agency focus is clear enough for basic guidance.

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