Count New USAspending Awards Over Time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering core behavioral traits. The description adds context about the recipient_id source but does not explain limitations like 'new' award definition, pagination, or zero-count behavior. Overall adequate but not enriched beyond 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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (grouping, date ranges, counting), the description lacks details on return format, definition of 'new awards', or handling of edge cases. No output schema exists, and the openWorldHint is not explained. The description is insufficient for a non-trivial counting tool.

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 low (33%), and the description only adds meaning for the recipient_id parameter by linking to the DUNS endpoint. The group and response_format parameters are not mentioned, and time_period is not explained beyond its schema description. The description does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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 clearly states 'Count new awards for a specific USAspending recipient over fiscal years, quarters, or months.' It uses a specific verb ('count') and resource ('new awards'), and implies distinction from sibling tools that handle spending or search. The mention of requiring a recipient_id hash adds specificity.

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 provides a prerequisite (recipient_id hash from another endpoint) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like usaspending_spending_over_time. It doesn't state when not to use or compare with siblings, only implying usage from the purpose.

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