Get Company Awards

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds rich behavior: full pagination, limit cap of 1000, sort allowed values, and the source-specific notice_id null behavior for FPDS rows. This explains data provenance consequences the schema and annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by short bullets for parameters and a focused caveat about notice_id/source. The longer source explanation earns its place because it prevents an agent from assuming every row has a notice_id.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers the remaining operational details: pagination cap, sort semantics, UEI format, and source-specific null behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret 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's 12-character format, sort_by acceptable values, sort_order values, and limit max. Offset is not described, but its default is in the schema and pagination is implied by 'full paginated.'

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get the full paginated award history for one company (every individual award, not just the summary totals get_company_profile gives you).' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_company_profile and makes the scope explicit.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with get_company_profile (summary totals vs individual awards) and identifies the tool as Capture & Teaming/Pro-only. It does not cover all alternative routes like search_awards, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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