usa_spending_by_award

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about award type groups and code mappings, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination limits, rate limits, or whether results are sorted by default. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds rich behavioral detail.

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 short paragraphs: the first states the purpose and main filter dimensions, the second explains award type mappings. It is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant information, and 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 12 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides the essential filters and award type mappings. However, it does not describe the response format or pagination behavior, which could be relevant for agents. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a search tool with high schema coverage.

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?

The input schema covers all 12 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra value by mapping human-readable award types to their underlying codes (e.g., 'contracts' to 'A,B,C,D'), which is not present in the schema and helps agents construct correct queries.

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 searches federal spending awards and lists the specific award types (contracts, grants, loans, direct payments). The verb 'Search' and resource are explicit, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like usa_spending_by_agency or usa_spending_by_recipient, leaving some differentiation to the name.

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?

No explicit guidance explains when to use this tool versus the many sibling spending tools. The description mentions filters but does not state that this is for award-level search as opposed to aggregated views, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions. Users must infer usage from the tool name.

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