usa_agency_overview

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

Annotations already indicate 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description's statement 'Get an overview' is consistent and adds no extra behavioral insight. The description does not disclose any other traits like data freshness, pagination, or response size. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate – adequate but no added 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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose; the second provides practical usage examples. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns (overview of spending with budgetary resources and obligations) and provides common codes. However, it lacks details on the output format or additional constraints, which would be helpful but not critical for this 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by providing a curated list of common agency codes beyond what is in the schema, helping users quickly use the tool. It does not explain the fiscal_year semantics beyond 'default: current', but the schema provides that. Overall, it adds meaningful context.

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's purpose: 'Get an overview of a federal agency's spending, including budgetary resources and obligations.' It uses a specific verb ('Get an overview') and identifies the resource ('federal agency's spending'), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'usa_spending_by_agency' which focus on detailed breakdowns rather than an overview.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'usa_spending_by_agency' or 'usa_spending_over_time'. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or any context for selecting this tool over others. The list of common codes is helpful but does not constitute usage guidance.

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