Search USAspending Awards

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about searching both prime awards and subawards, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination limits, rate constraints, or data freshness. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value.

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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides use-case examples, making it efficient for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested filter object, no output schema), the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on constructing the filter object, handling pagination, or understanding the response structure. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description mentions the 'AdvancedFilterObject' and provides example keys, adding value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. However, with 63% schema coverage, it does not fully compensate for missing descriptions on parameters like 'sort' or 'spending_level'. The examples help but are not exhaustive.

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 the tool searches prime awards or subawards using AdvancedFilterObject filters and selected fields, with concrete use case examples. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like usaspending_search_transactions or usaspending_get_award by specifying the scope.

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 explicit examples of when to use the tool ('top awards for a recipient, agency, date range...'), which guides the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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