search_federal_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature (PAID ($0.01)) and the requirement for WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, which is critical for invocation. It does not mention pitfalls like rate limits or error handling, but the cost and auth are transparently stated.

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 sentence packed with essential information: cost, output fields, sorting, filters, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the most critical detail (PAID) and is highly efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job covering what is returned, sorting, filters, cost, and auth. It lacks explicit notes on pagination or limit defaults (though limit is in schema) but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about filters and output fields but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it searches federal contract awards by company, listing output fields (award id, amount, agency, dates, description, link) and sorting order (largest first). It distinguishes from siblings like get_contractor_profile by explicitly mentioning award-specific data and filters.

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 mentions optional agency and date-window filters, giving context on how to narrow searches. It doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools, but the scope (awards by recipient) is clear enough to differentiate from related tools like get_contractor_profile.

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