Autocomplete USAspending Agencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it searches 'awarding or funding agency offices', which provides some behavioral context, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or empty result behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. Every word serves a function, with no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not explain the return format (autocomplete suggestions), the meaning of results, or how to interpret agent responses. Important details like the 'response_format' parameter's effect are left to the schema.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only response_format has a description), the description should compensate, but it does not explain search_text (format/length), agency_kind (beyond enum), or limit. The phrase 'awarding or funding agency offices' hints at agency_kind usage, but it is insufficient for the four parameters.

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 'Search' and identifies the resource 'awarding or funding agency offices', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'usaspending_autocomplete_recipient'. However, the mention of 'AdvancedFilterObject agency filters' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description fails to indicate that this is specifically for autocomplete suggestions, which could lead to misuse.

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