usa_spending_by_recipient

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already communicate that the operation is safe/read-only. The description adds that the tool returns top recipients and supports state/agency filtering, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as default sorting, pagination behavior, or what metric determines 'top' (e.g., total award amount). This is acceptable but not rich; the description adds some context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. Every clause earns its place: it states the action, the resource, and the main filtering options. No wasted words or tangential 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 simple read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It communicates what the tool returns and suggests filters, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'top' (e.g., by total dollars) or describe the response structure. Since no output schema exists, the description could do more to set expectations about return values and ordering.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only reiterates that state and agency filters can narrow results, which adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions. No additional parameter semantics (e.g., format, defaults, interactions) are introduced.

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's function: 'Get the top recipients (companies, organizations) of federal spending.' It uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (top recipients), and clarifies the domain (federal spending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usa_spending_by_award or usa_spending_by_agency which focus on different dimensions.

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 suggests 'Use state and agency filters to narrow results,' which implies usage context for narrowing queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., usa_spending_by_agency for agency-level totals or usa_spending_by_award for individual awards), nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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