Top Federal Contractors

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it details data source (USAspending.gov), aggregation methodology (sum of obligated dollars plus unexercised ceiling), filtering (prime contracts of $1M+, excluding smaller awards and unlisted recipients). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by methodological details and usage guidance. Front-loads the most important 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?

Given the 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains input (dates, max results) and output (ranked list of companies with total federal contract dollars). It also clarifies exclusions and data source, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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%, but the description reinforces parameter meaning (e.g., date range filtering on award action date, defaults for startDate and endDate). It adds context about what data is aggregated, which complements the schema descriptions.

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 ranks public companies by total federal contract dollars over a date range, with specific verb 'Rank' and resource 'public companies by total federal contract dollars'. It distinguishes from sibling GetGovernmentContracts by mentioning different 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 explicitly references an alternative tool ('Use GetGovernmentContracts for one company's individual awards') and provides example questions ('which public companies won the most federal contracts last quarter'). It lacks explicit when-not to use but the alternative covers the main distinction.

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