Get Subaward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns a specific FFATA report by SAM report ID, but does not discuss not-found behavior, response shape, or any operational nuances beyond what annotations already convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does, followed by a brief category label and a single useful parameter note. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It states what is returned (a FFATA subaward report), how to identify it, and where the ID comes from. It does not detail the response structure, but the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage make that less critical.

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 by stating the parameter is a UUID and explaining where to obtain it ('from search_subawards or a company's subaward list'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema title and type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one FFATA subaward report'), and a precise lookup key ('SAM report ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings like search_subawards.

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 indicates the ID is sourced 'from search_subawards or a company's subaward list', which implies this tool is for retrieving a specific known report after a search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple lookup tool.

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