usa_spending_by_state

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool returns total awards and per-capita spending, which clarifies output scope. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, default fiscal year handling, or behavior when state is omitted—though the schema covers the latter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely states the resource, action, and key output metrics.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool does and what it returns, while the schema covers parameter details. No significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (state and fiscal_year) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (federal spending by state or territory) and the action (get), and specifies the output metrics (total awards and per-capita spending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usa_spending_by_award or usa_spending_by_agency by its geographic scope.

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 a clear use case: retrieving geographically aggregated federal spending. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the state/territory scope provides enough context for an agent to differentiate it from agency or recipient breakdowns.

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