usa_agency_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the overview includes 'budgetary resources and obligations', which provides useful context about the data scope. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as output format, pagination, or whether it aggregates by fiscal year. Given the rich annotations, the description adds moderate value beyond them.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second provides common codes. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff or redundant phrases. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It states the purpose and provides example codes to help the agent choose agency_code. While it does not describe the output schema (there is none), the term 'overview' implies a summary of spending. The lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings is a minor gap, but overall the description covers the essential context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% because both parameters have descriptions. The agency_code parameter description lists common codes, and fiscal_year is described as 'Fiscal year (default: current)'. The main description also lists common codes, but the schema's list is more extensive (including '091' and '016'), making the description's list redundant. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides an overview of a federal agency's spending, including budgetary resources and obligations. The verb 'get an overview' and resource 'federal agency's spending' are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like usa_spending_by_agency, but the term 'overview' implies a high-level summary, which is a reasonable distinction. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 common agency codes to help with parameter input, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from usa_spending_by_agency, usa_spending_by_award, or other spending tools. The implied usage is 'when you need an overview', but no explicit guidance or exclusions are given, which is a gap given the large sibling set.

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