Get Prime Subawards

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false). The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: paginated `data` rows, a `summary` block with specific fields, and a recommendation to read `summary` first rather than summing pages. This exceeds what annotations and schema alone would tell the agent.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, then a sibling-contrast sentence, then tight parameter bullets, then a response-reading hint. Every sentence and bullet earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 required parameter is explained, direction vs sibling is crystal clear, pagination and summary handling are described, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be repeated. The only gap is optional parameters (`offset`, `date_from`, `date_to`) not being explained, though their purpose is fairly inferable from names.

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 does explain `uei` (12-character PRIME's UEI) and `limit` (max 250), but leaves `offset`, `date_to`, and `date_from` undocumented. With 5 parameters, covering only 2 leaves clear gaps that the agent must infer from parameter names and defaults.

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 and resource: 'Get every subaward THIS company (as a prime) paid out, "who did they subcontract to."' It clearly defines the direction of the query and contrasts it with get_prime_relationships, so an agent can distinguish the tool from its closest sibling immediately.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative get_prime_relationships, explains the opposite direction, and states that both use the same 'uei' parameter, telling the agent to 'pick based on which direction you're asking.' This is model when-to-use guidance with a clear exclusion.

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