Get Company Awards

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral details: it notes that rows have a `notice_id` only for `source: "sam_award_notice"` rows, that FPDS-sourced rows have null notice_id, and that the tool is paginated. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent important reasoning context about data provenance.

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 tightly structured: a purpose statement, a one-line access note, a bullet-style list of the key parameters, and then a short paragraph about the special `notice_id` behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's action, scope, pagination, parameter details, and the critical edge case of `notice_id` being null for FPDS rows. The output schema handles return formatting, so the description needn't describe fields. It also relates to sibling get_opportunity. This is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `uei`, `sort_by`, `sort_order`, and `limit` with allowed values and constraints (max 1000). However, it omits `offset` entirely, which is a parameter in the schema. Since the tool is explicitly paginated, offset is important and its absence in the description is a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full paginated award history for one company'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_company_profile by noting it returns every individual award, not summary totals. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (when you need the full award history for a single company) and even points out the alternative (get_company_profile for summary totals). It also notes the Pro-only restriction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list other alternatives like search_awards, but the primary distinction is clear.

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