Federal Contracts by Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond that: the $1M prime-award threshold, the listed-company resolution requirement, and the caveat that totals understate federal revenue and that 'total value' includes unexercised ceiling rather than revenue received. However it says nothing about pagination or response shape. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 fits the lower bar for a non-mutating read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then caveats, zero filler words, though the middle sentence is a dense list of return fields. Every sentence carries information; slight density cost keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it enumerates each returned field and qualifies the two that are most often misread (total value vs. revenue, outlays when reported). Combined with the explicit coverage limitations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 defaults, formats, and enum-like values ('amount'/'date') all documented inline. The description adds semantic meaning to the returned value field but little per-parameter detail beyond confirming date filtering uses the award action date. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get federal contract awards from USAspending.gov) scoped to a specific public company, and explicitly names the sibling GetTopGovernmentContractors it is not. An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the use case ('gauging a company's reliance on federal spending') and an explicit alternative with condition ('use GetTopGovernmentContractors to rank companies market-wide'). It also flags the coverage limits that make it inappropriate as a total-revenue measure.

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