Aggregate USAspending Over Time

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it aggregates spending data, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. 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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the aggregated output looks like (e.g., time series, totals, format). With 4 parameters including nested filters, more detail on output structure is needed for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 50% (only filters and response_format have descriptions). The tool description does not explain parameters beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'filter set' but adds no new meaning for group, spending_level, or response_format.

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 it aggregates obligations and outlays over time periods (fiscal years, calendar years, quarters, months) using a filter set. It distinguishes itself from siblings like usaspending_new_awards_over_time by focusing on obligations/outlays rather than new awards, but does not highlight this distinction explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like usaspending_new_awards_over_time or usaspending_spending_by_category. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or limitations.

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